Re: [backstage] mailing list subs form is broken
Fearghas McKay wrote: On 8 Oct 2009, at 23:48, Steve Jolly wrote: PS If you ever bump into him in person, do buy him a beer... Whenever I bump into him he is never drinks beer... Or valid beer substitute... S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Free as in 'Freedom'
David Tomlinson wrote: Steve Jolly wrote: A year or less strikes me as too little because too many people would just wait until it was free. 5-10 years seems like a more realistic minimum in that regard. Mind you, I think that copyright terms would vary by medium, ideally. It's free from the start, their are revenue streams, e.g. advertising or paying for a physical object, be that a CD or a T-Shirt or book. If you abolish copyright, then there's no way for the author to benefit from those revenue streams, because the people who make the CDs, T-Shirts and books have no reason to pay the author. I have addressed it, while I consider it natural, and people will not wish to give it up, I don't see it as desirable. It limits the Freedom of others. Every law on the books exists to benefit society as a whole by removing Freedoms from the individual. My right to privacy in my own home requires that other people give up their freedom to enter it without permission, for example. So I don't think you can make a case that copyright is unusual in this regard. How long would it take for a competitor, to prepare and publish an alternative to a say a book. More than three months ? A week or two, perhaps? Longer for a really high-volume product, but if copyright was abolished then you'd see specialist piracy-houses springing up, competing to be first-to-market with copied products. And they could take pre-orders in the interim period, reducing sales beneficial to the author still further. For a Dan Brown perhaps, but that is 8 Million sales in the first week, he can afford the leakage. It is only when products are successful, it is worth producing the physical copy. But I imagine the text for book was available in multiple locations within days. I don't read Dan Brown, for reasons of sanity. Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here. My point was that a publisher who chose to pay an author for their work would be out-competed within days or weeks by competitors who have no reason to pay that author a penny. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Google Wave
Billy Abbott wrote: I would like a pony. That sounds somewhat easier: there are more ponies in the world than Google Wave invites. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] mailing list subs form is broken
Fearghas McKay wrote: Since there is no obvious list admin please accept my apologies for posting this to the list Ian Forrester is paid a miserly pittance from our license fees to put up with us on this mailing list, and likes nothing better than to receive admin requests in person. Indeed, now that I share an office with him, I often hear him say so. ;-) S PS If you ever bump into him in person, do buy him a beer... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Pure Sensia
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/09/17/pure-sensia-digital-radio-first-look/ Linux-based radio with touchscreen and app support. Not sure I like the styling and it's a bit pricey, but it's an interesting product, certainly... Since it has Twitter support, no doubt certain members of this list will love it ;-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
Brian Butterworth wrote: And then there's that gizmo, the one that can deliver the Sun to white van man cheaply and reliably. The radio? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
Brian Butterworth wrote: It is very noticeable that WVM is not a DAB user... I was actually thinking of cross between a Kindle and an etch-a-sketch that can be dropped onto a road, get covered in cement dust and will still allow page 3 to be read.Something with an interface so simple that it can be operated by anyone in the pub and cheap enough to be given away with a few litres of petrol - or on the cover newspaper. I guess radio is inadequate for conveying page three content, but in the same way as a Times/Sky mash-up, I reckon a Sun/talk-radio mash-up might have potential - people in the trades tend to listen to a lot of radio. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC becomes the British Botnet Corporation
Sean DALY wrote: I listened to a discussion on the World Service radio The World Today programme yesterday morning, and I was disturbed at the sloppy reporting: although botnet machines are exclusively running Windows because of the poor Microsoft security model, this was not mentioned. In fact, OSX was cited as being as vulnerable as Windows, which is just silly. Although the three basic steps to security cited (patching, firewall, and antivirus) are useful to a general nontechnical audience, it's not a minor point that in the past ten years there have been thousands of virii, keyloggers, and rootkits which have attacked Windows, while those attacking GNU/Linux and OSX can be counted on the fingers of one's hands. Not sure I'm convinced - all operating systems have their vulnerabilities; telling *the general public* that they can worry less if they're using a less popular OS than Windows would just lead to complacency. Telling people to patch regularly, use a firewall and install antivirus software is the only safe general advice you can give. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] If you had a ton of content to freely distribute
Ian Forrester wrote: Say, we had a ton of media assets from a BBC programme which we owned all the rights to and wanted to distribute widely. Not just video, but images, sound, subtitles, metadata about the programme scripts, etc. How would you 1. Package it? Artists and techies will probably have somewhat divergent opinions on this one... S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] So Long and Thanks For All The Fish?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Wow this is arcane. We only got taught metric SI units at school... Yeah, I prefer to avoid the imperial ones, but sometimes you can't - when working with Americans is a common scenario. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] So Long and Thanks For All The Fish?
Brian Butterworth wrote: I kind of thought that the BBC should use SI units for some reason... What, and get pilloried in the press for pushing a metric agenda? :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Two questions: Comment Blogs and EU proposals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. Does anyone know how I can successfully contact members of the Innovation Culture team at BBC Research and Innovation? This list isn't a great way, but I think it's safe to say that some of them read it. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] High Frame-Rate Television
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: There was a cinema standard that called Showscan that ran at 60 instead of 24fps for similar reasons. And IMAX do a thing called IMAX HD that runs at 48fps. These systems both require a lot of lighting, and a lot of film stock to shoot, so I don't think they are likely to be popular, except in special cases like theme-park ride-films. Well, that's film for you. :-) Virtually all digital video recording systems use lossy compression though, so if higher frame rates compress better (as we suspect), your costs don't increase linearly with frame rate. I wonder if highly shuttered video produces better results on TVs that do motion compensated 100Hz stuff. E.g. if you delivered them 25p but with the shutter open for 10ms rather than 40ms, they will be able to make a much better job of the motion compensation, producing something very close to true 100Hz video, but with no need for extra bandwidth or changes to the transmission chain over what we have already. Should broadcasters consider shooting with this kind of TV in mind? That's when you'd need the extra light, because you're throwing away most of it by shuttering. But yes, the fact that motion-interpolating displays prefer highly shuttered video is something that broadcasters could start bearing in mind if those displays gain a large market share. Personally I'd be disappointed though - you're effectively using the low frame rate as a form of lossy compression, and there are far more elegant methods of compressing video than throwing frames away and then trying to regenerate them in the display. Also, have you considered how annoyed the directors who want a highly-shuttered look will be? :-) (Think Top Gear, etc.) Another thought I had was what about capturing motion separately to the picture, at a lower spatial, but higher temporal resolution. Perhaps using a strobed infra-red ilumination to generate smething like MPEG P B frames, and a full colour camera to generate I frames at a low frame rate. Not sure that strobed IR would be the way to do it (limited range outdoors or under tungsten studio lighting, limited correlation with the visible light images due to materials' differing IR reflectivities) but yes, there's all sorts of interesting ways to sample (or resample) the various aspects of the video signal differently once you get your thinking away from fixed frame rates. Chroma sub-sampling is a good analogy, and Bayer-patterning could be regarded as an interesting way to sub-sample chroma within the camera's sensor. I think you always need to bear in mind that you're effectively implementing a compression scheme though, and question whether or not it's going to be an effective one. I blog about this kind of video fundamentals stuff occasionally, if anyone's (still) interested - http://elvum.net. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] a postive BBC news story - Matthew Postgate's appointment bodes well for a new BBC tech era
Brian Butterworth wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/oct/29/bbc-research Matthew Postgate http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/matthew_postgate/'s appointment as controller of the *BBC's* research and innovation department is, at last, great news for the BBC 's tech department... It's nice that people still care. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Why the poor bitrates on World Service, Asian Network etc?
Brian Butterworth wrote: You could, perhaps, make high bitrate versions available to platform providers, with a limited number of feeds for the likes of LiveStation and Zattoo and the like. Intuitively, that strikes me as opening up *different* cans of worms... S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC DRM iplayer mobiles etc
Brian Butterworth wrote: I note that Stephen Fry has posted this, which seems to cover it quite well.. Hear hear. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] HD Videocamera advice please...
Jeremy James wrote: Simon Thompson wrote: The GOP length is the number of frames between successive I-Frames. A long GOP length will, for example, cause a delay on video appearing on changing channels on a STB or, as editing cuts can only start from an I-Frame will mean you can't do frame accurate editing. I disagree with can't - the Sony XDCAM EX1 is a serious camera intended for broadcast use that uses long-GOP MPEG2. However, editing is indeed harder since the software needs to be clever about how it handles the content. You potentially have to decode a fair number of frames to show the one you want, and (unless re-rendering) you need to keep up to the previous I-frame before any edits made in your source material throughout the editing process. BBC RD did some work on this a few years back - here's a white paper from 2006, for example, if anyone's interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp138.shtml The basic finding was more or less what Jeremy said - that long-GOP video encoding makes life harder for the people who write video editing software, but doesn't make frame-accurate editing impossible by any means. You have to trade the advantages and disadvantages of recording with a long-GOP codec according to circumstances - a state of affairs that will probably surprise nobody. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Android UK launch set for Tuesday
Brian Butterworth wrote: Sorry, a GPS compass. I worked on GPS for ages back in the day and don't ever recall GPS being able to be a compass. It can't be a compass directly, but many GPS receivers can show you your direction of travel on a compass-like display. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] erik huggers on open standards
Tim Dobson wrote: Mike Melanson wrote: I keep up with current subnotebooks and I don't know any that use non-x86 CPUs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aware_Electronics Yes so that's the A-View, the AW-300 and the AW-150 subnotebooks for starters. In what way are those X86 CPUs non-x86? Personally I'm disgusted that there's no iPlayer support for my Psion 3c. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Soundcloud
Peter Bowyer wrote: On 11/08/2008, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kingswood innovations Freeview Playback Due to launch in 2009 - with this you can record a whole series with one instruction and, if you want to record two programmes that clash, it will find one of the shows on a repeat broadcast and record it instead. Sounds a lot like MythTV to me The difference being that MythTV has to make guesses about which programmes are which, based on the episode names and descriptions in the EPG. It does a good job, but not a perfect one. The Freeview Playback on-air signalling (which for the features described, is already being broadcast) enables PVRs to do a perfect job - or as close to perfect as is realistic. :-) I know the MythTV guys were talking about implementing support for Freeview Playback signalling a while back - I don't know what its current status is though. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer - why the missing TV channel?
Adam Hatia wrote: It claims to be true 1280x720 @24fps... http://vimeo.com/help/hd ... The video in the link posted by Tom Hannen wasn't displayed at that resolution, even when you clicked the HD toggle (which changed the amount of lossy compression applied). Perhaps there's a different way to get the higher resolution? But wait, it can't really be HD... can it? Yes! It's real, true, actual high definition. No tricks. Some other sites (we won't name names) and even a few major media producers have been offering low resolution video as HD just because it's slightly higher than the quality typically seen on video sharing web sites, hoping you won't notice. Don't be fooled, Vimeo HD is true 1280×720, up to 24fps. I guess 720p24 *is* technically a true, actual high definition standard, although I would be very sad to see it widely adopted... :-) (I think that for most *video* material, of actual moving subjects, you'd be better off picking a lower spatial resolution and a higher frame rate. Except for material where the director has deliberately chosen a low frame rate for effect, of course.) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer - why the missing TV channel?
Brian Butterworth wrote: 25fps, 1280x720, 16:9 (0.87 megapixels) is what is going to be in Freeview HD, the DVB-T2 service. I'm not aware that anyone has ever suggested a 720p25 HD service in the UK. Ofcom have proposed putting four *720p50* services into a DVB-T2 multiplex. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer - why the missing TV channel?
Adam Hatia wrote: Does anyone know of any study results or resources on perceived quality comparisons between various resolutions (e.g. 1080i25 vs 720p50) encodings? Hans Hoffman has done some research in this area for the EBU: http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf has some early qualitative opinions in, and there's a presentation of his more recent, quantitative work at http://hdmasters2007.com/pdf/Presentations/HDM2007_Hoffmann-EBU.pdf Personally I found his results intriguingly counter-intuitive (in a good way). :-) Rainer Schaefer reports on the work done by the EBU D/HDC group in section 2.5 of http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/PMC08%20Report-FINAL_tcm6-58345.pdf S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer - why the missing TV channel?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Was it a bad idea to include BBC HD on iPlayer too? Are there any programmes on BBC HD that are not also broadcast (or even simulcast) on other channels? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer - why the missing TV channel?
Tom Hannen wrote: The iPlayer is great, but in terms of HD, Vimeo now seems to be the place to look at. Their HD channel is amazing, but unfortunately relegates the BBC's iPlayer into looking like yesterday's technology... Their HD channel is here: http://vimeo.com/channel778e An example: http://vimeo.com/775442 At 360 vertical lines, that's barely more resolution than the old quarter-screen BBC Parliament service on Freeview - it's not even SD quality. The video quality is better than the streaming iPlayer service (I don't have a Windows PC handy to try the iPlayer download service, which is higher quality), but calling it HD is a bit of a cheek. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC begins DVB-T2 test transmissions in preparation for HD on Freeview
Brian Butterworth wrote: I just asked Hauppauge if any of their exiting kit would work with DVB-T2, and they said I'm afraid that we do not have any product that would support DVB-T2, at the same time there's no plan of releasing one, at least until 2009. Looks like a very closed trial to me! It's not a trial, it's a test of the technology. And yes, it's a closed test. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Mashed TV
Simon Thompson wrote: We'll also be radiating a DVB-T (aka Freeview) signal for you guys to hack around with. We've got some USB DVB-T sticks, some software links and a talk on how to hack DVB-T and MHEG interactive stuff. Just to clarify - this won't be a rebroadcast of one of the existing Freeview multiplexes: it's something we've put together just for Mashed. Broadcasting all weekend on UHF channel 36 inside Alexandra Palace, the DVB-T network will contain two Mashed TV channels that will carry the lecture streams from Saturday morning, a bunch of videos from the O'Reilly Makezine Weekend Projects, some goofy idents created by gen-yoo-ine BBC research engineers and, in theory, anything that people give to us on the day (rights permitting, naturally). Obviously you'll be too busy hacking to watch telly though, so to give you something to play with, there will be all the non-video goodies associated with digital TV, too: full schedule information available in EIT and TV-Anytime formats, a rebroadcast of BBC One complete with subtitles, audio description and so forth, and a rather special red button interactive service provided by our colleagues from the interactive TV teams: they want to get people writing their own Internet-deployed interactive TV apps, and there will be IP-enabled set-top-boxes at Mashed for you to test them out on. http://mashed08.backnetwork.com/event/?articleid=24 gives some more technical details, and I'll be kicking off the How to hack the BBC's TV services session on Saturday morning with a brief talk about the potential of digital TV for cool hacks. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Cool Accessibilty Hacks and Subtitles using BBC Redux @ Mashed
Christopher Woods wrote: Blimey that sounds like a golden opportunity for some to really go a bit leftfield with their concepts... Is it all* of the BBC's digitised archive, or just a handpicked selection? Everything broadcast in the last year. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] RealPlayer banished Toady!
Andy wrote: 2. Flash streaming just works for most people, and as the TV iPlayer has shown, a tremendously popular way of consuming content. Not on mobiles. How about an Ogg stream with Cortado[1] for mobiles (or other people who dislike Flash). Cortado looks like a J2SE applet, not a J2ME midlet. Is there a mobile version too? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] RealPlayer banished Toady!
Tom Hannen wrote: I guess all the consituent parts exist already - I was thinking more of an app that would make it easy for you to skip items whilst cooking, or washing up, or in the car etc. If you have a CD player in the kitchen, it is very easy to skip to the next track - you stop what you're doing for a second, and hit one button. The same isn't true of trying to skip through items on the today programme - stare at the screen, grab the mouse, choose from a number of links, and click on one. Hit the space bar to hear the next item would be a nice feature. I'm not saying it should be part of the today website, just that if I had any programming skills whatsoever, I'd like to make it! I wonder if segmented MP3 podcasts would be an elegant way to enable this functionality? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If BT can, why can’t you or anyone else? In the absence of a contract with the broadcaster(s), I would suggest that copyright law might be a hindrance. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Zattoo - live streaming BBC channels
Christopher Woods wrote: Personally I'd rather have naff analogue with continuous audio where I can gist the few words I miss, rather than have a lossy (moreso than analogue, arguably) digital signal with squelchy audio and dropouts every so often. I put up with it on my PC's freeview receiver, but I still find myself wandering into the kitchen to tune in on the analogue set. I think I'm a bit strange. IIRC subjective quality tests have shown that poor quality audio causes a reduction in reported *video* quality of one point on the CCIR 5-point subjective quality scale. I can probably dig out a reference if anyone's sufficiently interested. Which suggests that people in general are even weirder than you think that you are, if that's any comfort. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
Andy wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: There is quite a reasonable argument that the TV License, which is used to fund BBC television and radio, is a regressive tax, so someone on benefits pays the same as a millionaire. Or to put it another way The less you earn, the more you pay as a percentage of your income. Someone who earns 14K per annum pays 1% of their income in TV Licensing, someone who earns 140K pays only 0.1%, (assuming both own a colour television), (figures not exact). Anyone else think that is a little bit unfair? Wouldn't a proportional or progressive tax be fairer? Depends on your definition of fair. :-) Leaving aside politics though, it's worth noting that making the TV license progressive would only be practical if the BBC's funding was folded into general taxation, and collected by HMRC. I mean, let alone the cost of dealing with the additional information, how many people would be happy to give TV Licensing verifiable details of their employment status and income? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Open Flash
Dan Brickley wrote: On top of that, things are set up for an equally classic you've tried the rest now try the best argument. If you've committed to Flash, best to use the real thing eh? Users have a choice now: they can get an implementation from the leaders or from the followers. (not my view but a natural spin on things) I agree with most of your points, but this one is only valid given a couple of presuppositions: namely that Adobe makes its own Flash player available for the platform you're using, and that the platform you're using supports user installation of software. The less your platform looks like a regular PC, the less valid these assumptions are likely to be (for now). S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
Thom Shannon wrote: He does have a point though that the BBC is anti competitive. I personally think the bbc is great for consumers, and that the quality of bbc news is the only thing stopping uk tv news turning into something like american news, but any of that could change, since the bbc isn't controlled by market forces. Not subject to market forces and anti-competitive are different things. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Matthew Cashmore wrote: lol! How on earth did Ian and I get on the list!!! Now that would be funny - can you imagine us running FMT! There would be lots more beanbags, for one thing. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Mr I Forrester wrote: No no, Redbull on tap... That would boost productivity :) Cridland, i'm hot on your heels I think that more senior management positions should be filled by popular vote. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Michael Sparks wrote: On Wednesday 16 April 2008 14:32, Mr I Forrester wrote: Although we laugh about this stuff, Google's policy on free food is actually well reasoned. But I don't think it would apply to the BBC, as we're publicly funded and rightly so should pay for food. I am however going to miss the free coffee and teas from the broadcast centre. Never was a better time to switch to green tea I guess. I've got a kettle up here and tea bags and coffee you know. :-) Do you want a fridge? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Mr I Forrester wrote: Peter Bowyer wrote: http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/04/15/who-should-be-the-next-web-guru-of-the-bbc-vote-now/ So I highly recommend everyone goes there and votes for the guy at the end of the list ;-) Mr Cridland is getting far too much support, we need to put him back in his place. Controller of the children's Vision would be a great job title. Almost as good as Controller, Internet, or indeed Head of Time at the National Physical Laboratory. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Tim Dobson wrote: In other news, Microsoft and Adobe employees are been encouraged to send the BBC their CVs. ;) I joke, I joke /me hides http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/14/bbc.digitalmedia1 (registration possibly required) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
Andy wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: 1. so the great evil here is probably the BT wholesale provision which seems to be behaving somewhat monopolisticly, which is a tendency that I know BT has. Abuse of dominant position is prohibited under Section 18 of the Competition Act 1998[1]. If BT are behaving somewhat monopolisticly shouldn't Ofcom do something about it? I believe that the wholesale price of IPStream ADSL is regulated by Ofcom already. Cutting it drastically would kick the legs out from under LLU. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Adding Subtitles/transcripts to /programmes pages
Tom Jacobs wrote: i think it would be really useful if the BBC made available the subtitles for their TV shows via the /programmes pages (or any other accessible, searchable API). Yes, it would be nice. You can get access to them via a DVB card in your PC, of course, but because they're broadcast as pre-rendered bitmaps, you'd have to OCR them before you could do anything useful with them. A few people have gone down this road - some friends and I gave a talk and a demo on the subject back at Open Tech 2005. http://www.ukuug.org/events/opentech2005/schedule/stephen_jolly.pdf S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC tells ISPs to get stuffed
Andy wrote: The BBC forgot to mention it's actually blocking ISPs from caching the streams. As has already been pointed out, caching the streams wouldn't help ISPs because it's not their upstream bandwidth costs that are concerning them. Leaving aside the practicality of caching content served via RTMP, the BBC is already using the Akamai CDN, making caching on the ISPs' networks largely pointless, as I understand it. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC tells ISPs to get stuffed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the ISPs have a point ... the ADSL network is (currently) like a collection of country roads (narrow and fairly slow) which the BBC is trying to drive it's supersize juggernauts down. Think the ISPs should use some form of traffic shaping for iPlayer traffic and that the BBC and other such companies should fess up some of the costs involved in improving the network if they want to use the net to push their weighty products. C'mon, the iPlayer (then imp) was first announced back in September 2003, and it's hardly the only service of its type. It's not like ISPs haven't had any warning that bandwidth-heavy mainstream applications were on the way. IIRC near-ubiquitous bandwidth caps (explicit or hidden away in fair use policies) only appeared with BT's launch of 8Mbps IPstream services in March 2006. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Embracing the torrent of online video
Matt Barber wrote: Yeah I saw some stuff about tapeless production when I read about Dirac last year, is it true that it is in use internally to shift some content around the BBC? Some teams are using tapeless production techniques, yes. I suspect that most radio production is already tapeless, but it's still in its infancy for TV work. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Runners needed for Over the Air
Brian^H^H^H^H^HMatthew Cashmore wrote: Hi Brian - received :-) Brian makes a lot of posts to this list, but that doesn't imply that all posters to the list are called Brian, Matt... ;-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: On 26/03/2008, *Steve Jolly* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're underestimating the difficulties. And ignoring the costs. :-) Bear in mind that you can't make any changes that would break the millions of installed Sky STBs. As I pointed out before, it would only be the Sky HD boxes that would need reprogramming. The Freesat boxes have not been released yet, so they can be fixed. Getting Sky to reprogramme their HD boxes to make life easier for a competing service sounds like a bit of a challenge by itself to me. But the point I was trying to make was that the existing MPEG-2 SD services and all their associated SI and interactive content will have to be broadcast for as long as there are substantial numbers of Sky SD boxes in use, *and* that any changes to the signalling on the multiplexes that carry them will have to be designed and then proven not to cause Sky boxes to do strange things. (This was one of the more obvious design challenges for Freesat, obviously.) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Let's assume that there is going to be a single transponder used for BBC HD. Instead of just having a single stream of BBC HD, it has six streams that usually occupy 3Mb/s each, leaving plenty for one of the streams to be in HD at full bitrate. To take just this paragraph as an example: nice idea, doesn't work in practice. Firstly, statmuxing a single HD h.264 service and a bunch of MPEG-2 SD channels performs poorly. (It's like putting chickens and hippos in the same pen - when a hippo wants a bit more space, the chickens tend to suffer.) Secondly, five 3Mb/s streams in a 22Mb/s multiplex leaves 7Mb/s, which is too little for an HD video stream, let alone all the SI and six channels' worth of audio and data. You can't increase the capacity of the multiplex, because you need to keep backwards compatibility with the existing Sky boxes. Thirdly, 3Mb/s is too low an estimate - none of the BBC's main channels average that on DSAT at the moment, so you're talking about a significant loss of quality for the non-HD majority of the viewing population. And so on. The problem with your idea is that it consists entirely of problems. The simplest of which is that it would be comparable in complexity to digital switchover and cost an absolute fortune. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Is it true that the new BBC/ITV Freesat service (starting 5th May) will be HD only? The Freesat website implies that HD programming will be broadcast in addition to SD. http://www.freesat.co.uk/what_is_it.php S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: On 26/03/2008, *Andrew Bowden* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Each region however has its own, permanent, dedicated video stream which broadcasts 24/7. I can't think of any channel on Sky which reconfigures its video configuration on the fly (e.g. bandwidth, bitrate, number of audio channels etc) Aside from the obvious point that there are number of channels that don't broadcast the whole day (BBC three, BBC FOUR, CBBC, CBeebies) that go to low or bitrate services AND the even more obvious point that the channels are statisitcially multipelxed together and therefore change bitrate on the fly the whole time. I think that of all the (15-odd) BBC 1 variants broadcast by satellite, only the London region is statmuxed, isn't it? That's a lot of HD services to find room for, and a very big (and expensive) upgrade to the BBC's DSAT broadcast chain. A simpler way to get a similar effect would be to tell the receiver when a programme was being simulcast in HD on a different service, so that it could automatically switch over to it at the appropriate moment, if that's what the user wanted, and back again at the programme's end. I think TV-Anytime supports that kind of thing in the related content table, IIRC. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is Freesat going to be HD only?
Brian Butterworth wrote: I think you are confusing Freeview with Freesat. On Freesat the multiple services are statmuxed together, on Freeview BBC ONE is in 4.9Mb/s, apart from Scotland, Wales and NI where the extra two radio channels mean the whole of mux 1 is statmuxed. I might be wrong, but I'm not confused. :-) I haven't done my own measurements, but linowsat.com backs me up: of all the BBC One regions, only London shows any kind of statmux-related bitrate varation that I can see: http://www.linowsat.com/0282/all/0282.shtml As I said, ideally the BBC One (London) and BBC Two services would form the foundation of BBC ONE HD and BBC TWO HD, but it would be brilliant if they could switch to the MPEG 2 SD transmissions for the regional news. I'm sure ITV1 HD would LOVE to do the same, especially for all that regional advertisting they are required to do... So, there may be a slight frame pause going to the news at 6:28, 6:58, 7:28, 7:58, 8:28, 8:58, 13:30, 15:28, 18:30, 19:59 and 22:25, but it would be a better way of sorting out the problem - well, cheaper. It's hardly rocket science! I think you're underestimating the difficulties. And ignoring the costs. :-) Bear in mind that you can't make any changes that would break the millions of installed Sky STBs. A simpler way to get a similar effect would be to tell the receiver when a programme was being simulcast in HD on a different service, so that it could automatically switch over to it at the appropriate moment, if that's what the user wanted, and back again at the programme's end. I think TV-Anytime supports that kind of thing in the related content table, IIRC. That would have the same effect, but I personally would perfer to have my content in MPEG4 rather than MPEG2. Your preference is noted. ;-) Personally I'd like Dirac. :-P S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] DVB-H finally gets formal adoption by the EC (oh and vista SP1!)
David Greaves wrote: Anyhow, personally I'm stuck until I can get a non-DRM HD signal into my Linux Myth PVR. I assume satellite isn't an option for you? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] DVB-H finally gets formal adoption by the EC (oh and vista SP1!)
Gareth Davis wrote: I'll warn you that a lot of processing power is required to decode the H264 profile in real time. When the BBC were doing the HD DVB-T trials across London I had a go at trying to pick it up, and found that my 3Ghz P4 machine could only managed about 14 fps. At the risk of promoting proprietary software, http://www.corecodec.com/products/coreavc.html may be your friend here. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Iain Wallace wrote: Aside from the Big Lebowski reference: What? I believe it's an analogy. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Guardian article about iPhone iPlayer
Thought that people might find this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/13/digitalvideo.television S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Ian Partridge wrote: One thing I've always found unconvincing is the way the BBC bleats but the production companies won't let us distribute the content DRM-free!. The BBC has major clout - it could say from now on, all production contracts we sign HAVE to allow DRM-free redistribution. It could refuse to pay megabucks for that. Given the piss-poor state that ITV is in at the moment, what would the rights-holders do? Take their bat and ball and go where exactly? The rights-holders need the BBC just as much as the BBC needs them - if not more. Can I suggest that you read up on the recent Writers Guild of America strike, with particular attention to the causes of the strike (notably the issue of residuals for new media distribution[1]) and the consequences - for the guild-members, a beachhead on the Internet and in new media that will guarantee our share of a potentially vast and bountiful future[2] according to the guilds' presidents. S [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007-2008_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike [2] http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2781 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Guardian article about iPhone iPlayer
vijay chopra wrote: I like the way that the article suggests I'm suddenly a 1337 h4x0r because I can chnge the user agent on my browser. See? I knew people would appreciate it. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Guardian article about iPhone iPlayer
vijay chopra wrote: The BBC response article is only marginally better, again referring to hackers for no apparent reason though they at least have a motive to mislead: propaganda. Though I probably shouldn't attribute to malice what's adequately explained by stupidity. Personally, I can think of explanations that don't insult the journalist in question. :-) That aside though, the BBC News website has a form for people to report factual errors which you could use if you felt sufficiently strongly about the matter. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Dave Crossland wrote: When the BBC limits the MP4 stream to Apple hardware devices, it is implementing DRM Sorry, not convinced. IANAL of course, but personally I don't see how the concept of restricting access to a particular client implies the concept of preventing copying. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Guardian article about iPhone iPlayer
vijay chopra wrote: I'm sorry I just despair for the journalists in this country. In theory they should be a paragon of virtue, holding authority to account, uncovering misdeeds and campaigning on behalf of the citizenry. Instead we get dumbing down and catering to the lowest common denominator; and then they wonder why they have falling circulation. The only dead tree press I buy now is Private Eye. You sure know how to make friends with people who work for the country's largest news-gathering organisation. ;-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 12/03/2008, Phil Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW I still can't get the mp4 to stream rather than download. Anyone? My guess is that the proprietary player on the iPhone just buffers part of the HTTP GET data and starts playing away? :-) That's how the iPhone is doing it (and the Flash player, and all the other network media players that support progressive downloads), yes. Obviously progressive downloads and streaming are very different things, but in the domain of Internet video, the former seem to be meeting a lot of users' requirements at the moment. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Iain Wallace wrote: That's how the iPhone is doing it (and the Flash player, and all the other network media players that support progressive downloads), yes. Obviously progressive downloads and streaming are very different things, but in the domain of Internet video, the former seem to be meeting a lot of users' requirements at the moment. The Flash player wasn't - it was using RTMP, which enables the client to feed back about bandwidth to maintain a stream quality that the client can handle and also to skip to any point without downloading the preceding file contents. I'm sure you knew this - just clarifying. Apologies, I wasn't talking about the BBC's video services, and I wasn't sufficiently clear - Flash *can* play video back via a progressive download (cf Youtube), or it can stream the video via RTMP as you point out. (I use the quotes because different people expect different things from the term - in a broadcast (or multicast) context people might expect streaming to preclude a return path back to the server, for example.) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is it just me, or is some stereo audio on BBC chans (Freeview) out of phase?
Christopher Woods wrote: Can you give an exact channel, date and time when you observed the phenomenon? (03:59 GMT last night on N24, perhaps?) Definitely. Observable on BBC2 last night/this morning (05/03/2008) during the intro for Spin (03:44am). Also observable during the 60second countdown buffer for N24 top of the hour (4am). I can send MPEG2 files if you want (direct streamrip, advantage of having USB DTV receiver). I have access to DTT stream recordings. :-) I took a look at the N24 music you mentioned. Listening to it, there's a very clear difference in the stereo characteristic of the sound between the (virtually mono) talking head segments on either side of the music, and a lesser difference between the music at the end of the special report and the N24 countdown in question. Converting the stereo to mid/side encoding and listening to the new channels separately, the side channel contains virtually no LF component, whereas the mid-channel contains plenty - you'd expect them to contain roughly the same amount if the signal had been subjected to a 90 degree phase offset, and you'd expect all the low frequencies to be concentrated in the side channel in the case of a 180 degree phase inversion. So at the moment, I don't see any evidence for an overall phase error, I'm afraid - at least for the one section of audio I've had a look at. :-) The difference in the characteristic of the sound that I can hear could simply be due to the transition between dead-centre mono speech and a very complex bit of music with a broad sound stage. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Is it just me, or is some stereo audio on BBC chans (Freeview) out of phase?
Martin Deutsch wrote: I've suggested that Christopher tries another reciever, or moves the aerial to somewhere with better signal strength. (I don't know that much about how the decoding process works, but perhaps someone more fluent in DVB will know - is it possible that error correction and recovery could be doing odd things to the sound in the event of low signal strength?) I wouldn't describe myself as an expert, but from what I know of DVB, I think that it would be very unlikely that a receiver could end up with an audio phase error and no other symptoms as a consequence of reception difficulties. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage-developer] BBC News GeoFeed
Barry Hunter wrote: Seems to do reasonably well http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http%3A%2F%2Fws.geonames.org%2FrssToGeoRSS%3Ftype%3Dkml%26feedUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnewsrss.bbc.co.uk%252Frss%252Fnewsonline_uk_edition%252Fuk%252Frss.xml Of course geocoding free text stories is still an imprecise science. Indeed - I like the way that it appears to dither between interpreting UK as the United Kingdom or the Ukraine... S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk developer discussion group. To unsubscribe, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe backstage-developer [your email] as the message.
Re: [backstage] Is it just me, or is some stereo audio on BBC chans (Freeview) out of phase?
Christopher Woods wrote: Not used my USB Freeview receiver for a while, hooked it up because I dug out an amplified aerial and thought 'heck, why not.' In essense, audio seems to be varying degrees out of phase - measurably 90 degrees out of phase on BBC Three and N24. I observed this phenomenon tonight on BBC Three, BBCs One and Two but most noticeable on News 24. Speech is fine (which is generally monaural, so yeah) and on other channels it's a bit noticeable in places, but it's most obvious on N24 and BBC Three where there's stereo music... The top of the hour buffer (with the countdown) on News 24 is totally out of phase for its duration. Can you give an exact channel, date and time when you observed the phenomenon? (03:59 GMT last night on N24, perhaps?) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Adobe fuses on and offline worlds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what is wrong is to forbid people from being to help people regardless of the circumstances, for example by sharing with them, even if they want to. This is what proprietary software does. It's also what happens when railways require photocards for season tickets, since that stops people sharing them and makes them buy their own. (I can't believe I'm making arguments in favour of proprietary software here... ;-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Internet TV standard
Christopher Woods wrote: Hat-tip also to the marvellously geeky bod at the Beeb for the inclusion of the Archimedes reference on the BBC Internet blog. Took me back to when I first got my A3000 :) There was one on my BBC Micro too, IIRC... :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
Richard P Edwards wrote: I would love to know who it was that decided to make the two systems incompatible.. once again, if that hadn't have happened HD-DVD could have still lost, but without the public's purchases becoming pretty much obsolete, and the hardware would still have a market. Where's the fun in a format war where the formats are compatible? :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Last.fm for television
Peter Bowyer wrote: On 28/01/2008, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I presume that a TV version of last.fm would be last.uhf? last.am would be more consistent, if slightly confusing. last.dssc? :-) last.cofdm perhaps, now that we're rapidly heading for digital switchover... S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
Brian Butterworth wrote: The system I wrote for ITV over 15 years ago worked down to the FRAME - that's 1/25 of a second. That is how channels are scheduled. Scheduling systems may be accurate to 1/25 of a second, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are equally precise. The ability to change their minds up to the last minute *and beyond* means that the accurate times need only reflect the schedulers' intentions, rather than being set in stone. My point was that the schedule on BBC TWO has been deliberately nudged along a few minutes to gain a competitive schedule advantage, and this is being withheld. I could just ask the BBC TWO scheduler if this is the case or not, I suppose. That would be more useful than asserting it without any evidence, certainly. Would an EPG be useful if the titles were imprecise? 99% in such environments is terrible. Firstly, titles *are* imprecise - they contain spelling errors and inconsistencies (eg Brand New Top Gear vs Top Gear vs Best of Top Gear, etc) that make it very hard for PVRs to do useful things with them (eg title-based series detection). Secondly, millions of people *do* find schedules useful despite the lack of total accuracy. So 99% in such environments is adequate. As a justification for doing nothing, yes. Something has already been done - a standard for accurate recordings has been agreed and implemented by the broadcasters and PVR manufacturers. I'm just thinking of the user of the PVR systems. The people who have bought standards-compliant PVRs get accurate recordings. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
Brian Butterworth wrote: I'm not trying to BLAME anyone here, I'm trying to find out where the EPG information gets nobbled and make an attempt to get some to acknowledge mistakes and provide accuracy in the data. Accuracy is impractical. Locking the start time of programmes to a second-precise pre-published schedule would cause chaos. I mean, think how often Radio 4 presenters crash the pips. If you had a channel with no live content, no continuity, no opt-outs and no last-minute programming changes then you might have a chance, but you can't design the EPG system for an entire platform around those limitations. So instead, you engineer a compromise. The schedule becomes a guideline - people can use it for planning their viewing, and PVRs can use it to try and stop you from booking more simultaneous recordings than you have tuners, and as a way to plan when to switch themselves on and tune in. Then you have a precisely-timed trigger signal (EIT P/F on Freeview) that the PVR can use to tell when the programme starts and ends. That way the broadcaster retains the flexibility to change the schedule as often as they need to, while the consumer still gets accurate recordings. You appear to be asking for last-minute schedule changes to be published separately. Well, you could do that, but the system I just described is better*, so that's what's been implemented. *it allows PVRs to behave correctly even when programmes overrun indefinitely and without prior warning, for example. If I can get a signed letter from someone at the BBC saying that it's Microsoft's fault, then I can go an staple it to the Memorandum of Understanding and get MS to sort it out. Do you really need a letter saying that WMC has not been certified as compliant with the Freeview Playback standard? Doesn't the absence of a Freeview Playback badge on WMC-based devices mean that Microsoft already know? I think that the core issue here is your assertion that published schedules should be as precise as possible, and updated as often as necessary. I don't think that most people expect that to be the case, and I don't personally see a compelling argument for making it so. If accurate Freeview recording from WMC is important to you, I would suggest that you direct your efforts towards getting Microsoft to implement it using the existing standards, and ideally get WMC certified by the DTG while they're at it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/papers/pdffiles/ibc99pl.pdf might be of interest to people following this discussion. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings
Brian Butterworth wrote: It seems incredible to me that the BBC is DELIBERATELY providing me (via Microsoft) with inaccurate information. If you were to start by assuming that inaccuracies in the EPG data provided by the BBC were there for reasons other than to screw over Windows Media Center users, you might be more likely to come up with a reasonable explanation for the behaviour. *I* know I can do this, I just wanted to know why the BBC was providing poisoned information. Why should people who have paid for Windows Vista Ultimate Edition have a poor service on purpose? Why should the BBC optimise its schedule services for the benefit of one particular manufacturer of DTT viewing software? As Martin describes, there are standard ways of accurately timing recordings from DTT, and if Microsoft doesn't choose to make them available to users of its software, I don't think it's reasonable to blame the BBC or any other broadcaster for this. Given how much you know about broadcasting, I am certain that you are aware of the conceptual and practical differences between programme schedules published a week or more in advance, and actual playout times, which can vary considerably, especially (but by no means exclusively) if live events overrun. I don't know much about Digiguide, but it seems probable to me that they are only providing you with the former information. Again, I find it hard to understand how the BBC is to blame for this. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer bursts through user target
Graeme Mulvaney wrote: It would be good if you could provide 'bookmarks' into some of the current affairs/magazine style programming - e.g. you could jump to a particular report in 'the culture show' or skip to the sudden death round of 'the weakest link', etc. Segmented content, huh? Yes, that would be nice... :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] 403 Forbidden on http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/
Sean DALY wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/technology/ is showing 403 Forbidden. Mmmm, sweet forbidden technology. (Not to be confused with http://www.forbidden.co.uk/). S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
Dave Crossland wrote: On 09/01/2008, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Production client-side code really shouldn't have documentation in. If the BBC is serious about supporting innovation around the iPlayer, it ought to leave it in here. I believe Ian said that there's a proper API coming, which sounds to me like a more elegant solution than serving lots of redundant comments to every iPlayer user. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]
David Greaves wrote: I think someone missed the point here... Or am I wrong? If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely more than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them all would be difficult? If the site was backed by some kind of new-fangled CMS then it would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer search problem
Adam Leach wrote: My point was that this top gear episode (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008gzy6) is signed, yet there is no way on knowing that until you start watching it. If i had downloaded this via the p2p client i would have been a bit disappointed, but then again its available so its better then nothing. Yeah, and the fact that signed versions of programmes are usually broadcast after the unsigned version often leads to only the signed version being available during the period around the end of the seven-day window - this struck me as being an interesting consequence of the window when I first noticed it. If you're like me and find yourself wanting more of the same when you've finished watching a programme, I suspect you could often find yourself wanting to watch content for which only a signed version is available. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Interview with Anthony Rose - Podcast
Matthew Cashmore wrote: Well it’s podcast time again and yesterday I got the opportunity to speak to Anthony Rose - head of all things iPlayer here at the beeb. Anthony also gave a pretty interesting talk at the IET's IPTV conference today - it's also on the web, albeit only (afaik) at the IET's own rather old-fangled site (Realplayer or Windows Media? is so 2005...): http://www.iet.tv/search/index.html?spres=5850 S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Noah Slater wrote: On 06/12/2007, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact isn't the bulk of this thread concerned with the way in which Perl On Rails will be non proprietary. Not really, proprietry is the wrong word to use here. The word free is much more descriptive. It is perfectly possible to have free proprietary software. To eliminate confusion, I propose that we in future refer to the FSF definition of free as GNU/Free. I thank you. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Matt Lee wrote: Steve Jolly wrote: To eliminate confusion, I propose that we in future refer to the FSF definition of free as GNU/Free. I thank you. Or you could say 'free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation', which is more accurate and doesn't fall into the logical trap of everything having a GNU prefix which some people may fall into. You could, but it has the two disadvantages of being longer to type, and not being a joke. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Deirdre Harvey wrote: So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? Well, someone here at BBC RD presented a (tongue-in-cheek) design for an android journalist at an internal new ideas symposium a year or so back... I don't think it's got past the concept stage though. ;-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Billy Abbott wrote: In order to get the gatekeepers to offer that software they need to have an incentive to do so. Apart from idealistic ones who are doing it for the reason of wanting the software to be free, I don't currently see what the incentive is for the others. While I'd like to be able to get the software (so that anyone can run their own service and also have the potential to grab the software and run their own service if their provider goes tits up) I can understand why people don't give it out for free. Pleae let me know if I am missing a reason why people should, outside of idealogical reasons. Well, if developers were more cautious about basing their applications on APIs with no Free implementations then that would give API providers an incentive. But they aren't, and I wonder why? As developers, what is it that makes the people on this list trust big web application and service providers to maintain their APIs for as long as you want them? Is it because you have a high level of trust for them, or a very short expectancy of useful life for your applications? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Brian Butterworth wrote: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/11/kangaroo_a_giant_leap_for_tele.html That second commenter seems rather familiar... :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: You really need to be careful with your language Richard That was Andy, not Richard. :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Andy wrote: Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an address.) IMO it might not count if it was unclear as to whether you were addressing a specific BBC member of staff or the list as a whole. But IANAL etc. :-) TBH I think most of the BBC employees here would take it as a kindness if you just emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service
Nick Reynolds-AMi wrote: i have no idea what a dat file is so I wouldn't know how to send one anyway so it must have been someone else Nick - I think you're using Outlook as your email client. Have you got it configured to send Rich Text emails by default? I believe that can lead to every email you send being given a winmail.dat file attachment that contains the Microsoft-specific rich text version of the email. See http://www.ericphelps.com/tnef/ for some details. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer under wine
David Greaves wrote: Stuart Ward wrote: I just found this project on sourceforge to sort out running the iPlayer under wine. http://bbciplayerlinux.sourceforge.net/index.php/Main_Page At which point they can replace the DRM library calls with stubs and ... ... not be able to decode the content any more? :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What's going on with the News 24 live stream?
Martin Deutsch wrote: On Nov 18, 2007 11:43 PM, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: Givem the original is at 25fps, why not encode at that in fact? 50fps. ;-) (Pedantic, but important...) Surely that just depends on whether your f stands for fields or frames? Two fields != one frame. I ranted about this back in August if anyone cares sufficiently... http://elvum.net/web-log/item/18/catid/3 S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What's going on with the News 24 live stream?
Christopher Woods wrote: Anyway, the cameras they were using had the holographic BBC HD logo plastered along the side of them, so things are looking up - unless they're just old skool SD cameras with a chavlike shopping list down the side of them! I wonder if the N24 cameras are similarly upgraded... It'd be nice to know that it's being filmed progressively, even if it's converted to interlaced for the final step, something which can always change in the future. The BBC's announced plans to shift all production to HD by 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_473/newsid_4739000/4739094.stm), but it's not there yet. Don't assume that HD==progressive, incidentally - despite the fact that humankind has developed far better lossy compression mechanisms than interlace over the years, interlace still made it into the HD standards documents... S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What's going on with the News 24 live stream?
Brian Butterworth wrote: If you are going to be pedantic, at least be right! UKTV (and all in Europe) is 25 frames a second I suspect yuou don't understand what interlaced means. I think I detect an impending semantic argument, so let me try and avoid it. You're (I think) defining a frame to be the combination of as many sequential scans of an image (fields) as are required to build up a full-resolution two-dimensional picture. Two fields per frame, in the present case. Let me expand slightly: fields are often bundled together and called frames for broadcast purposes, although not necessarily in such a way that they form a combined image (eg two fields may be placed one above the other to form a frame for some MPEG treatments of interlaced material). Because of this, yes, you can describe 50 fields-per-second television as 25 frames-per-second. I would like to argue, however, that it is misleading to characterise an interlaced television system in terms of its frame rate. Why? Because each field comes from a different point in time, and combining them together leads to spatial (combing) and temporal (judder) artefacts. (There are exceptions to this rule, eg when each frame of a film is broadcast as two successive fields - in this case simple recombination of the fields does not necessarily result in these artefacts.) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] What's going on with the News 24 live stream?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Givem the original is at 25fps, why not encode at that in fact? 50fps. ;-) (Pedantic, but important...) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] PlugLondon
Mr I Forrester wrote: Just in case you haven't already seen, the first pluglondon happens on 8th December at the Skype offices just off Tottenham Court Road. Its event which has very strong aims... 1. A place we can discuss, explore and showcase interoperability and evolution of platforms and software solutions. Things like mashups for example. Will Skype be talking about VOIP interoperability? ;-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Jonathan Tweed wrote: Don't forget to also drop at least u, otherwise you might end up with offensive short codes. You may have noticed that the programme ids don't have any vowels in them. This is deliberate ;-) Sounds like an interesting little algorithmic challenge - what shortcode generation algorithm eliminates accidental real words while compromising optimally between simplicity and efficiency? S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview
Michael Sparks wrote: Apologies if that's all a little random - and also, improvements on this summary (and on criterion) welcome. :-) Michael, your insistence on resorting to facts and reasoned argument risks torpedoing this entire prolonged exchange of rants. Keep it up. ;-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Yet another argument about digital rights (was Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview)
Andy wrote: Copyright Infringement is NOT theft, theft is theft, copyright infringement is copyright infringement. They are covered by entirely separate laws, they are described differently in the law, and the actions themselves differ greatly. How can educated people confuse the two? I assume that they consider the difference to be immaterial, and value emotive language over accuracy. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Christopher Woods wrote: Here's a thought... On Sky, and on cable too (right?) there's no channels at each hundred's -00 (100, 200, 300 etc). Why not do some interactive service which shows realtime mosaics, just like like CanalSatellite and Astra do in Europe? That'd be smashing. I've emailed Sky about that in the past and like hell did they take any notice :D but I think that'd be a genuinely useful feature, far simple than flicking through an EPG - just skimread the screen to see if you recognise anything on, or if you see something you might find interesting? arrow button across to it and there we go. The buttons are already there on the Sky remotes (and most if not all Freeview remotes, too). There's some tricky architectural and copyright issues associated with that idea - it's a bit trickier than having the buttons available on the remotes. Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use. There might well be issues related to rights-clearing the service for rebroadcasting each channel in miniature, too, especially if it gave people access to picture from channels they weren't subscribed to. And then there's the requirement for satellite space to carry the service, which wouldn't necessarily be suitable for conventional advertising. Anyway, back to my original thought - does anybody think that Sky will EVER offer the + functionality for free or a one-off payment? It'd kill me to finally get Sky in my own place and not have Sky+, especially as I had to put up with my Dad's resistance against getting Sky+ in our house when I was younger (he still doesn't have it, says installation and box makes it too expensive). Grr. No idea on this one, but I'm sure there are lots of people in the same situation as you. You might want to consider a subscription-free Freesat PVR, when they launch. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Andrew Bowden wrote: There's no technical reason - it's just the business model. Sky+ has been used to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn. The idea that your PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no doubt panics people. And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, although in that case they did actually have to provide the listings. With a Sky+ they are already there. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the entirely subscription-free Freesat service (the BBC/ITV initiative*, not Freesat-from-Sky) launches. * http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/27_04_2007.html S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer usage
Matthew Cashmore wrote: We will all of course be very sad to stop using MajorDomo. Ha! S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer usage
Adam Lindsay wrote: I went back and noticed that the original poster's question wasn't answered: are there any plans to reveal statistics on iPlayer usage? http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/ You could always ask directly... :-) S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
