Channel 4: General Discussion - Page 5

OV

Orry Verducci 14 December 2009 7:02pm

has anybody noticed any 'corruption' on 4hd? i've had a couple of programmes on recently and seen it. only seems to happen with 4hd.

looks a bit like signal breakup on freeview or sky and happens at random points. it happened during the credits of 'the family' and it's happened a couple of times in holyoakes.

I can't speak for 4HD, but I have seen a similar thing on Channel 4 on DSat over the past few days (not to mention millions of other mistakes at the moment). Seems something is wrong with their encoders or distribution, as on certain scenes the bitrate plummets and the picture pixellates, despite having only recently switched to the new Tandberg encoders which allowed for a resolution increase and higher quality picture. E4 has also been freezing at times, which I also assume to be an encoder issue.

TE

tellyman 14 December 2009 9:16pm

I'll have to see this what ever this new channel 4 ident is

DB

dbl 14 December 2009 10:09pm

nok32uk posted:

Strange listing boards on C4 at the moment.. I'm guessing these are the fail backups as they look awful!

Unless it's some form of tacky festive branding.

http://i49.tinypic.com/91bbkg.jpg

JO

Joshua 14 December 2009 11:31pm

I seen that a few days ago, I really don't like it! Especially the way the logo forms at the end, it looks too jumpy, as if they've had some kind of failure with the graphics..

BR

Brekkie 14 December 2009 11:58pm

Yeah, I've noticed over the last couple of weeks how they seem to be simpler. I just assumed change for changes sake - and for the worse too.

JO

Jonny 15 December 2009 12:01am

Looks to me as though they've made it 4:3 safe. The old one would often 'expand' outside of the safe area.

PT

Put The Telly On 15 December 2009 1:22am

Good god.. well they look terrible, the shadings and depths have all gone.

MA

Markymark 17 December 2009 2:14pm

Jonny posted:

I understand why broadcasters DOG their channels, the original broadcaster needs to be credited. Fine. But for goodness sake make it as small, unnoticeable and unobtrusive possible. Place it out of the 4:3 area, set it at a high transparency and p*** off. (see Sky1/2/3).

The Americans (unusually) have the right idea about DOGs, they stick them bottom left or right of the picture, which makes them significantly less obtrusive, though the best DOGs are the ones for BBC 1 and 2

JO

Joe 17 December 2009 3:52pm

I don't see how they're less obtrusive at the bottom.

MA

Markymark 17 December 2009 4:06pm

Jugalug posted:

I don't see how they're less obtrusive at the bottom.

Well, it's subjective of course, but your eyes tend to scan most the upper middle of a picture, that's where people's faces appear.
I don't know about you, but I find a DOG on someone's forehead more obtrusive than on their body ?

JO

Jonny 17 December 2009 4:18pm

I'm less distracted by lower third DOGs too but I know others dislike them even more than those placed at the top of the screen. It's the 4:3 safe bugs I can't abide by as they the result in 16:9 viewers seeing a channel logo floating in no man's land, frequently covering people's foreheads. Making this type of DOG opaque really is taking the mick.

SP

Spencer 17 December 2009 5:21pm

Markymark posted:

Jugalug posted:

I don't see how they're less obtrusive at the bottom.

Well, it's subjective of course, but your eyes tend to scan most the upper middle of a picture, that's where people's faces appear.
I don't know about you, but I find a DOG on someone's forehead more obtrusive than on their body ?

Most of the time though, the top left or top right just contains sky or background rather than any of the action. It's really pretty rare for someone's face to be obscured by a DOG.

Then there's also the practical reason that most on screen graphics appear at the bottom of the screen, which a DOG at the bottom could obscure - a particular problem with legal 'small-print' on ads and the like.