:-(
A former member
more Only fools and horses
PT
that wouldn't be a bad thing. I like the odd Only Fools repeat once in a while but when they ditched the Nations favourite sitcom completely I was disappointed.
623058 posted:
more Only fools and horses
that wouldn't be a bad thing. I like the odd Only Fools repeat once in a while but when they ditched the Nations favourite sitcom completely I was disappointed.
BE
HEY!
Why in the world BBC cut 11 episode of Doctor Who?
It's one of the most popular show......
Although they should axe BBC HD, I say axe the iPlayer, and sell shows on iTunes....
and yes, I know how to tivo shows, (I watch all my programme on my computer, which has a TV tuner built in, (I even stick my TV license paper on my computer))
Although I don't like this, if BBC is that desparate, axe BBC Three. BBC Four too intellegent to keep.
Paul02 posted:
It seems the BBC has saved some money by cutting 11 episodes of Doctor Who from the 2009 schedule.
I wonder what will take its place ?
International Strictly Come Dancing ?
I wonder what will take its place ?
International Strictly Come Dancing ?
HEY!
Why in the world BBC cut 11 episode of Doctor Who?
It's one of the most popular show......
Although they should axe BBC HD, I say axe the iPlayer, and sell shows on iTunes....
and yes, I know how to tivo shows, (I watch all my programme on my computer, which has a TV tuner built in, (I even stick my TV license paper on my computer))
Although I don't like this, if BBC is that desparate, axe BBC Three. BBC Four too intellegent to keep.
PE
HEY
Why don'y you piss off?
you're really quite annoying and have done nothing but post drivvel all day.......
Anyhoo,
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2919835.ece
contains an article where John Hunphreys says BBC3 and 4 should be axed to cut costs. Annnoyingly though I can't seem to get onto their website at the moment.
Pete
Founding member
bentoman posted:
HEY!
Why in the world BBC cut 11 episode of Doctor Who?
It's one of the most popular show......
Why in the world BBC cut 11 episode of Doctor Who?
It's one of the most popular show......
HEY
Why don'y you piss off?
you're really quite annoying and have done nothing but post drivvel all day.......
Anyhoo,
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2919835.ece
contains an article where John Hunphreys says BBC3 and 4 should be axed to cut costs. Annnoyingly though I can't seem to get onto their website at the moment.
CR
And BBC HD costs only a tiny amount. Surely - now that the BBC are making so much in HD, and it is almost impossible to buy a new half-way decent TV that isn't an HDTV, BBC HD is precisely what the BBC SHOULD be doing.
To make loads of shows in HD - which the BBC now has to do if it wants to sell them overseas - and not allow licence-fee payers to see them in HD seems perverse - like making everything in colour for the Americans but only showing them in black and white over here (which is, of course, precisely what happened on ITV in the 60s with series like The Avengers of course!)
The cost of transmission, and playout are minimal, and there is quite a lot of material available to the BBC in HD at very little extra cost.
I sincerely doubt the costs involved with HD are only a tiny amount otherwise ITV, Channel 4 and maybe Channel 5 would have jumped in as well.
While almost all new LCD TVs are HD ready I think you'll find very few if any have on board HD tuners to receive high-definition channels. Perhaps someone more technically not that people can correct me but the current situation is like having an analogue TV trying to watch a digital signal. Without a separate box you won't be able to receive the extra channels.
Unlike in the early days of colour when the BBC was expected to pioneer colour TV for the UK. It doesn't need to be the case now in this day and age. Sky television can pave the way charging those who are well-off enough to afford it for the privilege. In a time when the BBC is making cutbacks all over the place why not let Sky take the early burden in developing a market for it. Then in the medium to long term the BBC could then phase in all its channels with HD just like the government is doing with digital now.
The BBC can continue making shows in HD as it's a great way a future proofing current programming for when HD is mainstream. The BBC wouldn't be the only channel producing HD material that couldn't show it eg the US Sci-fi Channel Commission's much of its original programming in HD even though it only broadcasts in standard definition. Alternatively for those who want to view HD but don't want to pay Sky they can always rent/buy high definition discs (HD DVD/Blu ray). Then of course there's also the legal/illegal HD material that can be downloaded .
noggin posted:
crais posted:
Why not axe BBC HD. Only a tiny fraction of the country can actually watch it. Just let Sky develop the HD market and then at a time when a large proportion of the country is HD ready then introduce an HD Channel.
And BBC HD costs only a tiny amount. Surely - now that the BBC are making so much in HD, and it is almost impossible to buy a new half-way decent TV that isn't an HDTV, BBC HD is precisely what the BBC SHOULD be doing.
To make loads of shows in HD - which the BBC now has to do if it wants to sell them overseas - and not allow licence-fee payers to see them in HD seems perverse - like making everything in colour for the Americans but only showing them in black and white over here (which is, of course, precisely what happened on ITV in the 60s with series like The Avengers of course!)
The cost of transmission, and playout are minimal, and there is quite a lot of material available to the BBC in HD at very little extra cost.
I sincerely doubt the costs involved with HD are only a tiny amount otherwise ITV, Channel 4 and maybe Channel 5 would have jumped in as well.
While almost all new LCD TVs are HD ready I think you'll find very few if any have on board HD tuners to receive high-definition channels. Perhaps someone more technically not that people can correct me but the current situation is like having an analogue TV trying to watch a digital signal. Without a separate box you won't be able to receive the extra channels.
Unlike in the early days of colour when the BBC was expected to pioneer colour TV for the UK. It doesn't need to be the case now in this day and age. Sky television can pave the way charging those who are well-off enough to afford it for the privilege. In a time when the BBC is making cutbacks all over the place why not let Sky take the early burden in developing a market for it. Then in the medium to long term the BBC could then phase in all its channels with HD just like the government is doing with digital now.
The BBC can continue making shows in HD as it's a great way a future proofing current programming for when HD is mainstream. The BBC wouldn't be the only channel producing HD material that couldn't show it eg the US Sci-fi Channel Commission's much of its original programming in HD even though it only broadcasts in standard definition. Alternatively for those who want to view HD but don't want to pay Sky they can always rent/buy high definition discs (HD DVD/Blu ray). Then of course there's also the legal/illegal HD material that can be downloaded .
MA
If the cost of HD comes in the way of curent, good programming continuing then why not?
Unless of course you'd rather scrap a load of decent shows and just watch Teletubbies in HD...if so, then perfect.
To be honest though, I agree with you on HD, it is something great and should be kept if possible, just not at the expense of actual content. The BBC should have allowed for their license fee settlement to have not being as high as they were expecting but now they're running round in a tizz axing here there and everything. Silly, silly people.
dbl posted:
I cannot believe people think BBC HD should be axed... 
HD programmes generally LOOK better when downscaled to SD anyways, double pros.
HD programmes generally LOOK better when downscaled to SD anyways, double pros.
If the cost of HD comes in the way of curent, good programming continuing then why not?
Unless of course you'd rather scrap a load of decent shows and just watch Teletubbies in HD...if so, then perfect.
To be honest though, I agree with you on HD, it is something great and should be kept if possible, just not at the expense of actual content. The BBC should have allowed for their license fee settlement to have not being as high as they were expecting but now they're running round in a tizz axing here there and everything. Silly, silly people.
NG
And BBC HD costs only a tiny amount. Surely - now that the BBC are making so much in HD, and it is almost impossible to buy a new half-way decent TV that isn't an HDTV, BBC HD is precisely what the BBC SHOULD be doing.
To make loads of shows in HD - which the BBC now has to do if it wants to sell them overseas - and not allow licence-fee payers to see them in HD seems perverse - like making everything in colour for the Americans but only showing them in black and white over here (which is, of course, precisely what happened on ITV in the 60s with series like The Avengers of course!)
The cost of transmission, and playout are minimal, and there is quite a lot of material available to the BBC in HD at very little extra cost.
I sincerely doubt the costs involved with HD are only a tiny amount otherwise ITV, Channel 4 and maybe Channel 5 would have jumped in as well.
ITV, C4 and Five all broadcast HD shows on the Freeview HD trial last year. A number of ITV, C4 and Five shows are originated in HD - either those made by ITV/C4/Five or those bought by them.
On Freeview HD is a problem - however Freesat is likely to embrace HD.
One of the senior members of the Freeview launch team has now been named as the chair of Freesat - quite a significant move.
While almost all new LCD TVs are HD ready I think you'll find very few if any have on board HD tuners to receive high-definition channels. Perhaps someone more technically not that people can correct me but the current situation is like having an analogue TV trying to watch a digital signal. Without a separate box you won't be able to receive the extra channels.
Yes - just as it is not possible to buy a TV with a built in Sky or Cable HD receiver... The Freeview standard for HD has yet to be agreed - so no manufacturer will include an HD tuner for Freeview broadcasts. Until a standard has been agreed - and the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five are all pressuring Ofcom to decided on a standard sooner rather than later...
However it is possible to buy a cheap HDTV satellite receiver (not a Sky HD box) that will receive BBC HD and a few other HD satellite services if you have a multi-LNB/motorised dish set-up.
Unlike in the early days of colour when the BBC was expected to pioneer colour TV for the UK. It doesn't need to be the case now in this day and age. Sky television can pave the way charging those who are well-off enough to afford it for the privilege. In a time when the BBC is making cutbacks all over the place why not let Sky take the early burden in developing a market for it. Then in the medium to long term the BBC could then phase in all its channels with HD just like the government is doing with digital now.
Equally - the BBC pioneered colour broadcasting, as they did HD (the BBC were shooting shows in HD in the 1980s), and if public service broadcasting is not to be a poor quality, second class, ghetto-ised service they need to be at the cutting edge of quality broadcasting. The BBC helped pioneer colour PAL TV, Teletext, NICAM, RDS, Standards Conversion from US to UK TV standards, video tape recording, digital processing of TV, digital carriage of audio etc.
To decide to let a pay-TV operator develop the market for HDTV to those who decide to subscribe - mainly for movies and sport - seems like running up a white flag and saying the BBC is a second class service.
Other European PSBs are introducing HD services - after all even Sweden has an OTA HD service - SVT HD...
The BBC can continue making shows in HD as it's a great way a future proofing current programming for when HD is mainstream. The BBC wouldn't be the only channel producing HD material that couldn't show it eg the US Sci-fi Channel Commission's much of its original programming in HD even though it only broadcasts in standard definition. Alternatively for those who want to view HD but don't want to pay Sky they can always rent/buy high definition discs (HD DVD/Blu ray). Then of course there's also the legal/illegal HD material that can be downloaded .
Pre-recorded and downloaded material is no substitute for Live HD. Glastonbury, Wimbledon, Live Earth, Concert for Diana etc. were all shot and broadcast in HD this year by the BBC or for the BBC. All well worth watching. Why should the BBC be a second class TV service - especially when the cost of HD is dropping day-by-day.
noggin
Founding member
crais posted:
noggin posted:
crais posted:
Why not axe BBC HD. Only a tiny fraction of the country can actually watch it. Just let Sky develop the HD market and then at a time when a large proportion of the country is HD ready then introduce an HD Channel.
And BBC HD costs only a tiny amount. Surely - now that the BBC are making so much in HD, and it is almost impossible to buy a new half-way decent TV that isn't an HDTV, BBC HD is precisely what the BBC SHOULD be doing.
To make loads of shows in HD - which the BBC now has to do if it wants to sell them overseas - and not allow licence-fee payers to see them in HD seems perverse - like making everything in colour for the Americans but only showing them in black and white over here (which is, of course, precisely what happened on ITV in the 60s with series like The Avengers of course!)
The cost of transmission, and playout are minimal, and there is quite a lot of material available to the BBC in HD at very little extra cost.
I sincerely doubt the costs involved with HD are only a tiny amount otherwise ITV, Channel 4 and maybe Channel 5 would have jumped in as well.
ITV, C4 and Five all broadcast HD shows on the Freeview HD trial last year. A number of ITV, C4 and Five shows are originated in HD - either those made by ITV/C4/Five or those bought by them.
On Freeview HD is a problem - however Freesat is likely to embrace HD.
One of the senior members of the Freeview launch team has now been named as the chair of Freesat - quite a significant move.
Quote:
While almost all new LCD TVs are HD ready I think you'll find very few if any have on board HD tuners to receive high-definition channels. Perhaps someone more technically not that people can correct me but the current situation is like having an analogue TV trying to watch a digital signal. Without a separate box you won't be able to receive the extra channels.
Yes - just as it is not possible to buy a TV with a built in Sky or Cable HD receiver... The Freeview standard for HD has yet to be agreed - so no manufacturer will include an HD tuner for Freeview broadcasts. Until a standard has been agreed - and the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five are all pressuring Ofcom to decided on a standard sooner rather than later...
However it is possible to buy a cheap HDTV satellite receiver (not a Sky HD box) that will receive BBC HD and a few other HD satellite services if you have a multi-LNB/motorised dish set-up.
Quote:
Unlike in the early days of colour when the BBC was expected to pioneer colour TV for the UK. It doesn't need to be the case now in this day and age. Sky television can pave the way charging those who are well-off enough to afford it for the privilege. In a time when the BBC is making cutbacks all over the place why not let Sky take the early burden in developing a market for it. Then in the medium to long term the BBC could then phase in all its channels with HD just like the government is doing with digital now.
Equally - the BBC pioneered colour broadcasting, as they did HD (the BBC were shooting shows in HD in the 1980s), and if public service broadcasting is not to be a poor quality, second class, ghetto-ised service they need to be at the cutting edge of quality broadcasting. The BBC helped pioneer colour PAL TV, Teletext, NICAM, RDS, Standards Conversion from US to UK TV standards, video tape recording, digital processing of TV, digital carriage of audio etc.
To decide to let a pay-TV operator develop the market for HDTV to those who decide to subscribe - mainly for movies and sport - seems like running up a white flag and saying the BBC is a second class service.
Other European PSBs are introducing HD services - after all even Sweden has an OTA HD service - SVT HD...
Quote:
The BBC can continue making shows in HD as it's a great way a future proofing current programming for when HD is mainstream. The BBC wouldn't be the only channel producing HD material that couldn't show it eg the US Sci-fi Channel Commission's much of its original programming in HD even though it only broadcasts in standard definition. Alternatively for those who want to view HD but don't want to pay Sky they can always rent/buy high definition discs (HD DVD/Blu ray). Then of course there's also the legal/illegal HD material that can be downloaded .
Pre-recorded and downloaded material is no substitute for Live HD. Glastonbury, Wimbledon, Live Earth, Concert for Diana etc. were all shot and broadcast in HD this year by the BBC or for the BBC. All well worth watching. Why should the BBC be a second class TV service - especially when the cost of HD is dropping day-by-day.
R2
Glastonbury, Wimbledon, Live Earth, Concert for Diana etc. were all shot and broadcast in HD this year by the BBC or for the BBC. All well worth watching.
Were they? I noticed no difference at all in terms of quality on SD. To say that a few people on here have said that HD programmes look better than SD programmes on SD, I struggle to find the difference.
noggin posted:
Glastonbury, Wimbledon, Live Earth, Concert for Diana etc. were all shot and broadcast in HD this year by the BBC or for the BBC. All well worth watching.
Were they? I noticed no difference at all in terms of quality on SD. To say that a few people on here have said that HD programmes look better than SD programmes on SD, I struggle to find the difference.
PC
I've noticed that.
The first impression might be that BBC HD is more worthy of the axe than BBC3 or BBC4 are because more people at this stage will be receiving digital compared to those with HD.
But ask the question 'if it were axed, how much [content] could we lose with regard to the services core purpose?' and based on the schedules of BBC3 and 4, I'd be tempted to say you'd have much less to lose than might be imagined if both of those were axed instead of HD.
This suggestion is for the sole reason that getting rid of the HD channel would equal an absolute end to a HD service of any form until the main channels get round to it. The purpose of the service is to broadcast all High-Def content - no other existing Beeb channel currently matches this.
On the other hand, axing BBC 3 and 4 would not equal an absolute end to their programming - rather, this would allow BBC2 in particular to reclaim the sort of content that the two digital channels have effectively stolen away from it, and would furthermore encourage new series to go directly to 2, thus preventing the existing trend of using BBC3 as a 'testing ground' for a programme, which is then eventually reshown on BBC2 - and therefore is, by that point, a repeat.
Add to this that you consider both BBC3 and 4 are not running even a 12-hour service, yet still readily repeat a programme twice each night, it would seem the case for the best of what both those digital channels have (predominantly BBC4 content, then?
) to be aired on one of the two main Beeb TV services with respect to genre and 'accessibility' of the subject matter, and BBC3 and 4 only resuming when they are ready to provide schedules that are for example free of re-runs within every 12-hour period. Personally, I don't think BBC3's overall output is particularly worthy at all.
dbl posted:
HD programmes generally LOOK better when downscaled to SD anyways, double pros.
I've noticed that.
The first impression might be that BBC HD is more worthy of the axe than BBC3 or BBC4 are because more people at this stage will be receiving digital compared to those with HD.
But ask the question 'if it were axed, how much [content] could we lose with regard to the services core purpose?' and based on the schedules of BBC3 and 4, I'd be tempted to say you'd have much less to lose than might be imagined if both of those were axed instead of HD.
This suggestion is for the sole reason that getting rid of the HD channel would equal an absolute end to a HD service of any form until the main channels get round to it. The purpose of the service is to broadcast all High-Def content - no other existing Beeb channel currently matches this.
On the other hand, axing BBC 3 and 4 would not equal an absolute end to their programming - rather, this would allow BBC2 in particular to reclaim the sort of content that the two digital channels have effectively stolen away from it, and would furthermore encourage new series to go directly to 2, thus preventing the existing trend of using BBC3 as a 'testing ground' for a programme, which is then eventually reshown on BBC2 - and therefore is, by that point, a repeat.
Add to this that you consider both BBC3 and 4 are not running even a 12-hour service, yet still readily repeat a programme twice each night, it would seem the case for the best of what both those digital channels have (predominantly BBC4 content, then?
) to be aired on one of the two main Beeb TV services with respect to genre and 'accessibility' of the subject matter, and BBC3 and 4 only resuming when they are ready to provide schedules that are for example free of re-runs within every 12-hour period. Personally, I don't think BBC3's overall output is particularly worthy at all.