noggin's posts, page 314

15,946 search results, most recent first

NG
noggin Founding member

Olympics 2016

VMPhil posted:
noggin posted:
In terms of other stuff - subtitles, audio description, interactive services, EPG etc. I suspect that there won't be huge changes (though presumably DVB subs need a higher res bitmap unless they are upscaled). I wonder if Sky will finally ditch WST subs for UHD?

Speaking of DVB subtitles - is there a reason why subtitles on HD channels vary from channel to channel compared to SD?

Yes - it depends on the font chosen by the broadcaster (or whoever does the final subtitle encoding on transmission). DVB Subtitles are bit mapped (like DVD) - so effectively broadcast as graphics (same as DVD subtitles work) not as character codes (which is how teletext subtitles and closed captions work), so how they are rendered is entirely up to the configuration of the bit of kit that generates them at the broadcaster/encoder.

The same is true on HD and SD channels - but in the UK there has been near (total?) universal adoption of Tiresias for SD channels - so they always look the same.

Most (all?) UK broadcasters actually use the teletext-over-SDI standard internally to carry subtitles (so the layout, characters and colour choice is still limited to the World System Teletext options - tough more subtle colour variations, and nicer typefaces can be used for rendering) We also still have platforms (DSat Sky) using WST subtitles - so it makes sense to keep to a single internal standard.

Quote:

Digital subtitles on standard Freeview/DVB-T and Virgin Media have always used the same font size and typeface (I presume Sky is the same too), whereas channels on Freeview HD/DVB-T2 seem to differ, for example ITV's subtitles are a lot larger in font size than the BBC's. Virgin Media however still use the older style subtitles on both SD and HD channels (which I believe were designed in 4:3 and are actually stretched when viewing 16:9).


Sky uses WST subtitles (i.e. World Systems Teletext) - effectively 888 subtitles in the same way as CEEFAX used to carry them - and the font is dictated by the receiver not the broadcaster. The receiver just renders them in a nicer font on Sky boxes so they don't look like teletext...

This is why channels that are on both Sky and Freesat platforms have to broadcast both WST and DVB subtitles.

It is quite funny that HD services are still using a subtitle system that effectively dates back to the early-to-mid 70s...
NG
noggin Founding member

Is there an easier way to get TV recordings to a hard drive?

sda| posted:
I sometimes use a generic DVB T2 USB stick but I could never find any reliable software to just record the streams with - I find it easier to work with a generic no brand DVB-T2 STB, about 15 quid, which records the raw output onto a USB drive which lets me do what I want with.

TV Headend in Linux (working on a Raspberry Pi or similar) isn't a bad solution - you get the Freeview and Freeview HD EPG, can schedule recordings etc.

I have a paid-for copy of DVB Viewer which is also very useful in Windows.

Quote:

Re WTV, When I used to use the 'MC-TV converter' for WTV videos, I had to edit my own script into it so I would get the untouched MPEG2 video, all the built in options either deinterlaced it, etc. They might have updated it though since then though.


I've used ffmpeg with .wtv files for ages now. It supports audio and video streams well - though subtitles are a bit of an issue.
NG
noggin Founding member

Is there an easier way to get TV recordings to a hard drive?

UKnews posted:
On a related note- is there any (ideally Mac) software that will do for HD24 TS files what MPEG Streamclip does for MPEG2 TS files? (ie edit without re-encoding)


Some of the TMPGEnc software would let you do that with MPEG2 stuff(though tied to GOP-boundaries) - I used to do it to tidy up DVD recordings without re-encoding.

I'd quite like to find some Mac, PC or Linux software that allowed transport stream editing (though it's tricky to do in a compliant way I think)
NG
noggin Founding member

Euro 2016

Markymark posted:
Steve in Pudsey posted:
Is having separate HD and UHD operations a legacy contract thing (existing HD company couldn't do UHD/didn't get the contract) or is it a belt and braces thing until the UHD tech is proven so HD is there as a back up?


Arena have no UHD OB trucks yet, (though they have two in build at present, presumably in time for the new PL season)

Timeline's UHD truck can only handle 12 UHD cameras, the two new Arena trucks will be 24 cam outfits.


Are we at a point where UHD is like-for-like capable of replicating HD coverage - so production values don't drop when you go UHD? (i.e. do we have UHD Super Slow Mo EVS integration, UHD Piero etc.)

That was one reason that SD and HD separate production continued for a while when HD launched - as HD had higher picture quality but was limited in production value compared to the SD state-of-the-art. It was only when HD could match SD, and thus an SD down convert didn't impose a drop in production and coverage quality, that HD / SD simulcasts became routine. (This was the issue for HD Olympics coverage ISTR)
NG
noggin Founding member

Euro 2016

elmarko posted:
noggin posted:
(That said SISLive did move into sports production for the Delhi Commonwealth Games. Which didn't end well...)

Oh? What happened?


SIS didn't get paid properly, ended up having all sorts of legal issues in India as a result. (When SISLive had the BBC F1 facilities deal they couldn't do the Indian GP with SIS staff or kit ISTR as a result...)
NG
noggin Founding member

Olympics 2016

dosxuk posted:
noggin posted:
I guess that's more akin to the Digital UK D-Book and NorDig stuff that defines a specific platform or platforms ? This is important for TVs with built in DVB receivers - but for pay-TV platforms less so, particularly if they develop their own receivers rather than badging third parties.


Exactly - for the likes of Sky, who can control the the entire distribution chain, they can choose anything they want and know it'll keep working because they've specified it. Individual broadcasters wanting to create a free-to-air 4K channel on the other hand are much more sensitive to any changes to those standards as they won't want to launch a service which then gets changed and people have to buy new TVs to carry on watching.

Of course, Sky may have issues if they want to provide access to future FTA channels and they don't have the finalised standards on board. However, I suspect they're much more likely to be able and willing to update their firmware than some of the TV manufacturers.


Yes - that said, apart from HDR and HFR the chances are that most things are decided. 3840x2160/50p 4:2:0 8-bit or 10-bit using HEVC compression. I guess there may be an AAC vs AC3 discussion for the audio - but both can be supported by most SoCs (or in software I guess these days).

In terms of other stuff - subtitles, audio description, interactive services, EPG etc. I suspect that there won't be huge changes (though presumably DVB subs need a higher res bitmap unless they are upscaled). I wonder if Sky will finally ditch WST subs for UHD?
NG
noggin Founding member

Eurovision 2016

Brekkie posted:
Stuart posted:
It was a good 'Eurovision' song - cheesy and populist. We've won on such songs before. Thumbs up Such a shame for the lads, as that was probably the best we've put forward for years.

It was but it just wasn't good enough against probably the strongest competition in years. To pick up points you need to be a top ten song and this just wasn't quite there. It certainly wasn't the third worst song but when juries and viewers are choosing the top 10 it doesn't matter too much whether you fall 11th or last in the vote.

This is precisely it - if you aren't in the Top 10 ranking for jury or public in any given country (i.e. don't get a 1-8/10/12) it doesn't matter whether you were 11th or 26th - the result is 0 points from that jury or public. You have to be Top 10 or better to get votes. That's the tough reality.
Quote:

Be interesting to see actually if the song did any better if the full rankings were taken into account.

Yes. There is lots of low level granular detail that makes this stuff interesting in stats terms.

Quote:

Also the idea of a "good Eurovision song" needs to be consigned to history now. It's good songs that are needed to win, not good Eurovision songs.


Yes. The problem the UK has is that it still associates Eurovision with a 70s 'Boom Bang a Bang' 'La la la la la' kind of music. The reality in the modern era is that songs like that get nowhere. Look at the winners over the last 10 years or so. None of them have been 'stereotypical Eurovision songs'. They've been distinctive (within the contest at least) and memorably performed and/or staged. Personally I think Australia probably should have won this year (They would have if we'd used last year's voting system) - and they'd have won deservedly. I'm not saying I wish Ukraine hadn't won though - as I'm pleased they did.
NG
noggin Founding member

Eurovision 2016

Whataday posted:
It certainly did not deserve to get the same position on the scoreboard as Electro Velvet (although J&J had far more points than them).

Yes - though with the new voting system you have to halve the new score to compare it to the 2015 and earlier scores (and also consider the number of votes available as more countries = more votes) - as every country now gives twice as many votes (Jury have 1-8/10/12 and Public have 1-8/10/12)

That said - the UK still did a lot better as we got 5 in 2015 and 62 in 2016 - which either compares 5 to 31 or 10 to 62 if halve this year or double last year.

Total number of votes each country had pre-2015 was : 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+10+12 = 58
That is now doubled to 116.

Put it another way - a really good song could now get 2x12 points from a country - 12 from the jury and 12 from the public. Previously you could only get a single 12.

I guess the best way of comparing performance is to divide the points you received by the total number of 12 points available to that country (which would be 12 or 24 by the number of countries minus 1 - as you can't vote for yourself) which is the highest score a country could get?

That would let you measure success on a more absolute scale - allowing comparison between years other than by ranking?

Looking at the UK last year and this vs the winner last year and this :

UK 2015 = 5 points = 1% of highest possible score (40 countries - 39 x 12 points available)
UK 2016 = 62 points = 6.3% of the highest possible score (42 countries - 41 x 2 x 12 points available)

Sweden 2015 = 365 points = 78% of the highest possible score (39x12 points avail)
Ukraine 2016 = 534 points = 54% of the highest possible score (41x24 points avail)
Last edited by noggin on 28 May 2016 1:12pm
NG
noggin Founding member

Euro 2016

I suspect Arena are the resource provider for the host broadcast. AIUI they are an OB company, not a sports production company. (That said SISLive did move into sports production for the Delhi Commonwealth Games. Which didn't end well...)
NG
noggin Founding member

Olympics 2016

dosxuk posted:
noggin posted:
dosxuk posted:
The main problem is there is still no agreed standard for 4K transmission. The broadcasters have all been working on 8K, which has an agreed track to and timescale for its standards. 4K only exists because the market for 3D TVs ran out and the display manufacturers needed a new gimmick, but 8K isn't ready.

Without standards in place, there's no guarantee that kit bought today will be capable of receiving 4K broadcasts next week, let alone when actual transmissions start. The current services are all reliant on proprietary solutions and configurations (fine when you're in control of the whole signal path, not when you want to ensure interoperability).


There is a UHD1 DVB standard kit of parts isn't there - just as there are SD and HD kits of parts (you can chose whether you use MPEG2, H264, H265 for video, MP2, AC3, AAC etc. for audio etc.) This is based around 2160/50p SDR in Europe?

HDR and 100/120p are likely to be later updates?


IIRC the 4K standards have now been agreed on, but they're not yet ratified, pending further research & development, with an aim to launch standards compliant 4K broadcasts in 2018. 2 years before 8K broadcasts are expected to begin...

So what does that mean for Sky Q receivers already installed then? AIUI the core standards are there - it's just branding and deployment choices. So Sky can deploy gear now as long as they are happy it fits with their requirements?

Quote:

In the meantime, as you say, there's a kit of parts, and broadcasters are free to experiment with them, but until it's all signed off and agreed, there's no guarantee of interoperability or lasting of current kit.


I guess that's more akin to the Digital UK D-Book and NorDig stuff that defines a specific platform or platforms ? This is important for TVs with built in DVB receivers - but for pay-TV platforms less so, particularly if they develop their own receivers rather than badging third parties.
NG
noggin Founding member

Foreign drama thread (BBC4, C4's Walter Pres, Sky Arts etc)

globaltraffic24 posted:
Delighted to see that Walter Presents has picked up Dicte from TV2 Danmark. I've been hoping it would make an appearance. It'll be interesting to see how it does in the viewing figures. It's more of a run-of-the-mill crime drama - less dark and moody.


Wonder if someone will pick up Unit 1 and The Protectors. (Aka Reijseholdet and Livvakterna) Suspect Unit 1 is probably a bit old and the production values a bit too low. Similarly The Eagle (aka Ørnen) and Anna Pihl.
NG
noggin Founding member

Is there an easier way to get TV recordings to a hard drive?

S-video connections will only every deliver SD captures as the S-video signal in Europe will only ever be 576/50i (for US audiences it will be 480/59.94i), and even if you go for an S-video grab solution you'll still end up with grabs only a little better than PAL composite ( the benefit of S-video is that you don't get interference between chroma and luma - i.e. coloured fuzziness on black and white stripes etc.)

A lot of us capture using PC DVB tuners (not Sky boxes) and grab as screen shots when playing back the 1080i off-air recordings in VLC.

There are ways of capturing HDMI on a PC - but Sky boxes have HDCP encryption to prevent copying and HDMI Capture solutions usually won't work with these. There are some ways round this - but they probably can't be discussed here.