Re: [backstage] What is TV?

[Kieran Kunhya]

> On which platforms? As I said, I’m not talking about
> Windows *at all* here.

It uses an appropriate renderer for the platform, which by default would be GPU 
accelerated. (I don't feel like looking up the names for each one right now 
though...)

> …yes. It does it backwards. Given a focus on rendering
> video (and
> overlaying limited-movement sprites atop video) it makes
> far more
> sense to convert everything to match the video and
> composite that way,
> rather than converting frames of rapidly-changing video to
> RGB for
> output (usually via some device with a path optimised for
> non-RGB
> video rendering)

The reason this happens is because different video cards vary vastly in the way 
they treat YV12 (especially considering flash's wide range of machines/dirvers 
that it runs on). It's very difficult to get a consistent result without going 
through an established API so RGB is used instead.

> >  doesn't have a proper method for
> specifying the buffering time. This means it can't formally
> support any of the modern video buffering features (such as
> HRD in H.264). Also the ogg container format doesn't have
> any index making the "official" method through javascript a
> non-starter.
> 
> It’s early days, but it’s already significantly more
> promising than
> Flash has been for quite some time now.

Forgot to say this makes streaming that doesn't stop-start near-impossible.

-
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 is TV?

[Mo McRoberts]

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 13:19, Kieran Kunhya  wrote:
>> a) VLC, when _not_ using the GPU, doesn’t struggle
>> remotely as much as Flash
>> b) VLC also overlays text and graphics over video
>
> Again using the GPU for compositing.

On which platforms? As I said, I’m not talking about Windows *at all* here.

> Thanks to overlays and other transforms the YV12->RGBA conversion has to be 
> done that way can still be quite slow considering other browser threads have 
> priority. It's not an easy problem to solve at high-resolutions while keeping 
> the plugin size as low as possible.

…yes. It does it backwards. Given a focus on rendering video (and
overlaying limited-movement sprites atop video) it makes far more
sense to convert everything to match the video and composite that way,
rather than converting frames of rapidly-changing video to RGB for
output (usually via some device with a path optimised for non-RGB
video rendering)

>  doesn't have a proper method for specifying the buffering time. 
> This means it can't formally support any of the modern video buffering 
> features (such as HRD in H.264). Also the ogg container format doesn't have 
> any index making the "official" method through javascript a non-starter.

It’s early days, but it’s already significantly more promising than
Flash has been for quite some time now.

> As far as I know most (all?) HTML5 video implementations suffer from 
> similar/worse performance than flash thanks to browser compositing engines 
> requiring RGB input.

Again, not touched Windows at all here, but on the Mac at least  can play back 1080p video with about ~20% of one CPU core being
utilised without skipping frames and still allowing downscaling.
Flash, in contrast, can’t play back 720p _except_ fullscreen (so no
downscaling), consumes about 160% of a single CPU core in doing so,
and barely manages the full framerate. Attempt to downscale, and 25fps
video drops to about eight frames per second and CPU usage spikes.

The scope for improving and optimising  in successive browser
releases is significant and promising; the scope for improving Flash’s
video playback is nil, unless you’re Adobe: there are no competing
implementations of any note. Flash’s video playback is a dead end,
effectively.

M.

-
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 is TV?

[Kieran Kunhya]

> a) VLC, when _not_ using the GPU, doesn’t struggle
> remotely as much as Flash
> b) VLC also overlays text and graphics over video

Again using the GPU for compositing.

> c) YV12->RGB _can_ be tightly optimised if you’re
> crazy enough to do
> things that way around
> 
> The key there is that the YV12->RGB conversion that
> Flash does is
> slow, rather than it necessarily being software (i.e., it
> could be
> relatively efficient and still software).
> 

Thanks to overlays and other transforms the YV12->RGBA conversion has to be 
done that way can still be quite slow considering other browser threads have 
priority. It's not an easy problem to solve at high-resolutions while keeping 
the plugin size as low as possible.

Also like VLC's upcoming DXVA implementation I think the Flash version is a 
hack by not actually using a proper renderer but pulling the processed frames 
beforehand. (I'm no Directshow expert so I can't explain how it's done there) 
However, if there is an ASIC on the PC designed to decode H.264 it might as 
well be used.

Hopefully this will lead to more use of non-filmic framerates online. Such 
overuse of filmic framerates online and on TV and probably on IPTV will 
inevitably devalue the effect in my opinion.

> Frankly, the sooner the codec mess behind 
> gets sorted out
> and Flash can be avoided in the few remaining contexts that
> it’s used,
> the better.

 doesn't have a proper method for specifying the buffering time. This 
means it can't formally support any of the modern video buffering features 
(such as HRD in H.264). Also the ogg container format doesn't have any index 
making the "official" method through javascript a non-starter. 

As far as I know most (all?) HTML5 video implementations suffer from 
similar/worse performance than flash thanks to browser compositing engines 
requiring RGB input.

-
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 is TV?

[Mo McRoberts]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 13:25, Kieran Kunhya  wrote:
>> > This is windows-only right now (presumably because
>> Apple won't give Adobe access to the necessary APIs).
>>
>> Er, what? Where did that presumption come from?
>>
>> Nothing else on the Mac or Linux has a problem with video
>> compositing.
>> VLC, which does it entirely in software too, has _no_
>> issues. Quartz,
>> QuickTime, and OpenGL, which can be hardware-accelerated,
>> are
>> thoroughly documented.
>
>
> GPU vendor agnostic H.264 bitstream decoding on Macs is only possible with 
> Quicktime - there is no public API for H.264 bitstreaming as far as I know. 
> Such a thing is not possible with Linux. (There are only separate vendor APIs 
> on Linux such as VDPAU)
>
> Compositing is done on the GPU in VLC (as part of whatever renderer VLC uses 
> - VMR9 on windows if I recall correctly) whereas in Flash it's a slow 
> software based YV12->RGB conversion in order for overlaying text/graphics 
> amongst other things. Also various issues with running inside a browser 
> window slow it down.

Right. The decoding is largely a non-issue. The issue is the
compositing engine. Essentially:

a) VLC, when _not_ using the GPU, doesn’t struggle remotely as much as Flash
b) VLC also overlays text and graphics over video
c) YV12->RGB _can_ be tightly optimised if you’re crazy enough to do
things that way around

The key there is that the YV12->RGB conversion that Flash does is
slow, rather than it necessarily being software (i.e., it could be
relatively efficient and still software).

Either way, of course, it’s still Adobe’s problem, and was
Macromedia’s before that, and one either could have expended
significant resources improving upon when it was decided to position
Flash as a universal video playback platform.

Frankly, the sooner the codec mess behind  gets sorted out
and Flash can be avoided in the few remaining contexts that it’s used,
the better.

M.

-
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 is TV?

[Kieran Kunhya]

> > This is windows-only right now (presumably because
> Apple won't give Adobe access to the necessary APIs).
> 
> Er, what? Where did that presumption come from?
> 
> Nothing else on the Mac or Linux has a problem with video
> compositing.
> VLC, which does it entirely in software too, has _no_
> issues. Quartz,
> QuickTime, and OpenGL, which can be hardware-accelerated,
> are
> thoroughly documented.


GPU vendor agnostic H.264 bitstream decoding on Macs is only possible with 
Quicktime - there is no public API for H.264 bitstreaming as far as I know. 
Such a thing is not possible with Linux. (There are only separate vendor APIs 
on Linux such as VDPAU)

Compositing is done on the GPU in VLC (as part of whatever renderer VLC uses - 
VMR9 on windows if I recall correctly) whereas in Flash it's a slow software 
based YV12->RGB conversion in order for overlaying text/graphics amongst other 
things. Also various issues with running inside a browser window slow it down. 

-
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 is TV?

[Mo McRoberts]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:11, Kieran Kunhya  wrote:

> This is windows-only right now (presumably because Apple won't give Adobe 
> access to the necessary APIs).

Er, what? Where did that presumption come from?

Nothing else on the Mac or Linux has a problem with video compositing.
VLC, which does it entirely in software too, has _no_ issues. Quartz,
QuickTime, and OpenGL, which can be hardware-accelerated, are
thoroughly documented.

Flash’s terrible performance is pretty much entirely Adobe’s problem.

M.

-
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 is TV?

[Gordon Joly]

A tv is box of electronics that is going to the Council dump today - 
replaced by an iMac and a Freeview dongle (with two UHF tuners).


TV and Radio are broadcast media. They exist inside a regulatory 
framework, and date back to the work of Marconi, Tesla, Hertz and others.


Amateur radio still exists, but like broadcast TV and radio it is being 
knocked sideways by the Internet .


73

de

Gordo

-
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 is TV?

[Kieran Kunhya]

--- On Wed, 30/12/09, Brian Butterworth  wrote:

> Why the Flash iPlayer client can't use the
> hardware acceleration.  I get lots of dropped frames
> watching through the iPlayer Desktop.

The new Flash 10.1 beta uses DXVA (DirectX Hardware Video Acceleration). 
However it has problems with scaling right now. The main reason they didn't do 
this earlier is because of paranoia about buggy video drivers causing crashes 
and potential security issues.

This is windows-only right now (presumably because Apple won't give Adobe 
access to the necessary APIs). When DXVA goes into the main player, iPlayer 
should be able to improve their HD encoding parameters (e.g. turning CABAC on, 
more reference frames etc.) However I doubt this will happen because the 
streams might well end up looking better than the broadcast albeit only at 25p.

-
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 is TV?

[jonathan chetwynd]

endless remakes of Emma?

haven't had one for well over a decade,
eventually the men in white vans do stop coming
well almost

 ~:"


-
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 is TV?

[Mo McRoberts]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 19:17, Brian Butterworth  wrote:

> Why the Flash iPlayer client can't use the hardware acceleration.  I get
> lots of dropped frames watching through the iPlayer Desktop.

Flash’s abysmal video decoder is a longstanding bone of contention
amongst those in the know. It’s even worse on non-Windows platforms.

I have a G4 Mac Mini here which can play back downloaded iPlayer HD
streams via QuickTime’s decoder, with no dropped frames. In contrast,
it can’t even manage to play back iPlayer SD streams via Flash without
skipping.

(Personally, I use get_iplayer primarily so that I can watch iPlayer
content on the devices of my choosing, which are rarely PCs or Macs;
if I couldn’t do that, I’d grab DVB streams OTA instead).

M.

-
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 is TV?

[Brian Butterworth]

I use get_iplayer to get the HD content from the BBC, this means my Windows
7 machine will use the hardware decoder on the video card, this gives the
best possible quality and no dropped frames.

Why the Flash iPlayer client can't use the hardware acceleration.  I get
lots of dropped frames watching through the iPlayer Desktop.

2009/12/30 Barry Carlyon 

>
>
>>> I don't know what's next for TV (anyone's guess is as good as mine)
>>> but I can have some fun imagining it too.
>>>
>>
>> I hear BBC one HD and BBC TWO HD are on the cards...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
> Now HD is an interesting one, but I don't think my laptop or Broadband
> bandwidth will like that, I take my TV thru Live iPlayer at the moment, the
> TV just gets in the way, as in I can double my computer monitor for PC use,
> TV watching, or Xbox Playing.
>
> --
> Barry Carlyon
> "Located Between Al-Jazeera and BBC Radio 1"
>
> SRA Chart Officer
> Webmaster: http://LSRfm.com - Leeds Student Radio
>
> http://barrycarlyon.co.uk
>
> mobile: 07729 048 443
> office: 0113 380 1281
> skype: barrycarlyon
> email: ba...@barrycarlyon.co.uk
> msn: ba...@barrycarlyon.co.uk
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] What is TV?

[Barry Carlyon]

>
>> I don't know what's next for TV (anyone's guess is as good as mine)
>> but I can have some fun imagining it too.
>>
>
> I hear BBC one HD and BBC TWO HD are on the cards...
>
>
>>
>>
Now HD is an interesting one, but I don't think my laptop or Broadband
bandwidth will like that, I take my TV thru Live iPlayer at the moment, the
TV just gets in the way, as in I can double my computer monitor for PC use,
TV watching, or Xbox Playing.

-- 
Barry Carlyon
"Located Between Al-Jazeera and BBC Radio 1"

SRA Chart Officer
Webmaster: http://LSRfm.com - Leeds Student Radio

http://barrycarlyon.co.uk

mobile: 07729 048 443
office: 0113 380 1281
skype: barrycarlyon
email: ba...@barrycarlyon.co.uk
msn: ba...@barrycarlyon.co.uk

Re: [backstage] What is TV?

[Brian Butterworth]

2009/12/30 Matt Barber 

> Originally
> black and white, delivered over huge sets with a lower resolution. Now
> we have impressive looking glass things on the wall serving up really
> good pictures over a digital medium.
>

Interestingly 405-line and 625-line TV were described in their time as "high
definition television"!

I would say that the description of SD digital TV pictures as "really good"
is possibly as generous as you can be.  They WERE really good when
BBC4/Cbeebies was the only things on Mux B.  12Mbps MPEG2 looks amazing, and
even when it went down to 8Mbps it was excellent.

But compared to analogue 625-line with a perfect set-up they look a little
poor (also 4:3 or 14:9) they are technically inferior.


>
> I don't know what's next for TV (anyone's guess is as good as mine)
> but I can have some fun imagining it too.
>

I hear BBC one HD and BBC TWO HD are on the cards...


>
> --Matt
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Frank Wales  wrote:
> > Rain wrote:
> >>
> >> Wot that pastime you only end up doing if you really, really have
> nothing
> >> better to to do instead?
> >
> > Oh, I know, I know! Is it: "debate the meaning of 'TV'"?
> > --
> > Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com]
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] What is TV?

[Matt Barber]

Enjoying the thread!
"TV is a dinosaur sleepwalking off a cliff." - classic.

TV is a cool medium. The whole world is fascinated with what's on TV -
makes up a lot of what people do, say and think about all the time.
Still, don't you think that the medium of the Internet - Interactive
and instant protests, gatherings and media sharing is really showing
it's power? Rage against the machine for xmas #1 was initiated on
Facebook, but propelled with traditional TV media once the news hit.
As the snowball got bigger, TV coverage also increased and so on.

For me TV is 'trusted', always-on medium that is robustly delivered
and doesn't often go wrong. Internet delivery can have these qualities
- but for the sheer difference in end user platform and quality of
delivery, we can't yet really say the same, can we? I'd love to see
1080p arrive via IP but it's not widespread enough yet. 4G will bring
even more fun to the table with HDMI enabled 4G devices.

But digressing - TV as a medium is evolutionary for sure. Originally
black and white, delivered over huge sets with a lower resolution. Now
we have impressive looking glass things on the wall serving up really
good pictures over a digital medium.

I don't know what's next for TV (anyone's guess is as good as mine)
but I can have some fun imagining it too.

--Matt




On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Frank Wales  wrote:
> Rain wrote:
>>
>> Wot that pastime you only end up doing if you really, really have nothing
>> better to to do instead?
>
> Oh, I know, I know! Is it: "debate the meaning of 'TV'"?
> --
> Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com]
> -
> 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/
>

-
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 is TV?

[Frank Wales]

Rain wrote:

Wot that pastime you only end up doing if you really, really have nothing 
better to to do instead?


Oh, I know, I know! Is it: "debate the meaning of 'TV'"?
--
Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com]
-
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 is TV?

[Rain]

Wot that pastime you only end up doing if you really, really have nothing 
better to to do instead?

(okay, 'Thick of it' is alright...)

R



--- On Tue, 12/15/09, Dominic Smith  wrote:

> From: Dominic Smith 
> Subject: Re: [backstage] What is TV?
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 5:30 PM
> From the International
> Telecommunications Union Radio Regulations:
> 
> Television: A form of telecommunication for the
> transmission of
> transient images of fixed or moving objects.
> 
> (where 'telecommunication' is defined in the annex to the
> Constitution
> of the International Telecommunication Union as: 'Any
> transmission,
> emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images
> and sounds or
> intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or
> other
> electromagnetic systems.')
> 
> Source:
> <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5f7baa88c0b0605780a2e4f8eaee9eaa&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.3.1.218.1&idno=47>
> 
> Note that television does not have to be a broadcast. My
> amateur radio
> licence permits the transmission of television on a broadly
> one-to-one
> basis, and broadcasting (one-to-many) is specifically
> prohibited.
> 
> I think that that defintion of 'television' probably still
> holds.  It
> would presumably mean that iPlayer, and other streamed
> media, content
> _is_ television, given that wire is specifically included
> in the
> defintion of transmission.  I'm not a lawyer, however,
> and wouldn't want
> to get into the debate about whether watersheds and other
> TV regulations
> should apply online (and, if so, whether the timezone at
> the server or
> client counts...)
> 
> -
> 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/
> 


  

-
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 is TV?

[Dominic Smith]

>From the International Telecommunications Union Radio Regulations:

Television: A form of telecommunication for the transmission of
transient images of fixed or moving objects.

(where 'telecommunication' is defined in the annex to the Constitution
of the International Telecommunication Union as: 'Any transmission,
emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or
intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other
electromagnetic systems.')

Source:


Note that television does not have to be a broadcast. My amateur radio
licence permits the transmission of television on a broadly one-to-one
basis, and broadcasting (one-to-many) is specifically prohibited.

I think that that defintion of 'television' probably still holds.  It
would presumably mean that iPlayer, and other streamed media, content
_is_ television, given that wire is specifically included in the
defintion of transmission.  I'm not a lawyer, however, and wouldn't want
to get into the debate about whether watersheds and other TV regulations
should apply online (and, if so, whether the timezone at the server or
client counts...)

-
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 is TV?

[Ian Stirling]

Brian Butterworth wrote:
Another way of looking at TV is that is the delivery of audio visual 
services using high capacity omnidirectional technology. 



I think you mean broadcast.

Clearly, in 1980, you absolutely cannot do 'video on demand' for everyone.

The playback technology diddn't exist, the networks diddn't exist, the 
end-user terminal would have cost more than the house.


In 1990, little had changed.

By 2000, you could just about do it, with huge amounts of investment - 
tens of billions?


In 2010, it's an annoying amount of infrastructure, and there are many 
bottlenecks in some parts of the country.


In 2020 - several megabit bandwidths will typically be available to most 
peoples phones, and certainly not a problem for several peoples streams 
to the home.


In 2030 - 'Now - your grandparents used to all sit down at the same time...'

Going from now to then is going to be the fun part - and the only 
certainty is that lots of people will lose their shirts along the way, 
and government will feel the need to 'do something'.


In 2030, I don't see any drivers that will lead away from the majority 
of the market being pay-per-view in some form.


This does not quite mean the death of channels.

For example.

7AM on a monday - the new Dr Who - series 24 episode 13 becomes 
available for bidding.


There are several sorts of rights that purchasers can buy.

They can buy regionally exclusive rights - for example - a channel can 
buy the right to show Dr Who in the UK over the next 3 days for all 
their users for 5p/copy, with any other channels paying 20p/copy if they 
wish to show it during the 3 days, and individuals paying 30p.


Individuals can also purchase the rights to watch - if you want to watch 
on monday, it's going to be more expensive than if you wait 8 weeks.


It can be cheaper for you to purchase a channel package, which will have 
adverts targetted at you as digital product placement in the program - 
the dalek will have a B&Q, Lidl or Ikea toilet plunger on it.


You may even have premium and non-premium channels - where the 
non-premium channels pick up everything after a week.


Then, you will I suspect have the government effectively bidding on 
certain classes of program, the 'crown jewels'.


I'd also expect some programs to be 'shareware' - where viewing is free, 
and you can pay what you like at the end.

If the program makes money, it keeps getting made.

And many other forms of distribution.

-
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 is TV?

[Ant Miller]

Not definitional but:

TV is a large international engineering, entertainment, and journalism
complex with a contiguous attitude toward it's 'audience' and in most
cases, it's 'customers/clients'  (aka advertisers).  It is a culture
under threat, and reacting to that threat with several contradictory
trends- a flight to quality and niche (think HBO and the abandonment
of the mass audience model), a flight to immediacy (think 24 hours
rolling news) and a flight to audience centrism (think ultra local TV
and the cult of UGC).  These reactions and more are pulling apart the
consensus at the heart of TV- there is no perfect TV anymore, if there
ever was.

What was 'perfect TV'?  It was the idea of commecially sustainable
programming of a wide range and high quality that utilised steadily
advancing technology to deliver better pictures and sound to more
people and to build ever larger audiences.  It was not more choice.
It was not revolutionaly technology.  It was not a technological
fracturing of the audience and their devices.  Perfect TV is dead, and
to tell the truth it never really existed anyway.

Institutions like the BBC (and RAI, RTE etc.) were anomalous in the
global TV industry, and we need to recognise that.  We need to
understand that on a global scale TV is commercial, and the BBC then
as now oppoerates along side commercial partners in terms of
technology and content.  The two key differences are that we don't
carry adverts (and so do not have the 'client relationship' that
defines most of TV) and that we have, instead, developed a strong
social contract.  As the technology changes in the global market throw
TV globally into turmoil, we will be thrown into turmoil too.

TV is what mass communications and publishing was before the internet
reached most people's homes.  TV the industry- the industrial/
entertainment/ journalism complex- is trying very hard to move into
the internet enabled world, but whether it will successfully do so by
porting most of it'sbusiness wholesale into the IP delivered
infrastrucutre (a la Hulu/ iplayer) or my being an integrated and
enriching element of the whole integrated mesh of digital objects and
relationships (which can btw include the content that is bottled up in
products like Hulu) remains to be seen.  Arguably, the internet could
by sheer technological evolutionary pressure democratise all content.
But that in itself is a threat to the web of business that TV is
bringing to the party.

TV is a dinosaur sleepwalking off a cliff.

a

(personal opinion only natch)



On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Ian Stirling :
>> Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>>
>>> Discuss.
>>
>> TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures,
>
> I'm not sure "live" transmission is definitional; most TV isn't live,
> although it started off that way AIUI.
>
>> where you can have a large
>> number of people over a significant distance watching one event.
>
> I'm not sure broadcasting "events" is definitional.
>
> For me, TV is broadcast video, which is to say, TV is video that a
> mass audience watches simultaneously.
>
> To paraphrase McLuhan, as the medium of our time - computer networks -
> is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and
> every aspect of our personal life, the way video is disseminated is
> changing.
>
> TV is still possible with the internet, but it is a very minor way for
> video to be published.
>
> Just as theatre is still going, but in a very minor way compared to
> the prominance it had because electric technology.
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Ant Miller

tel: 07709 265961
email: ant.mil...@gmail.com

-
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 is TV?

[Dave Crossland]

2009/12/15 Ian Stirling :
> Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>
>> Discuss.
>
> TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures,

I'm not sure "live" transmission is definitional; most TV isn't live,
although it started off that way AIUI.

> where you can have a large
> number of people over a significant distance watching one event.

I'm not sure broadcasting "events" is definitional.

For me, TV is broadcast video, which is to say, TV is video that a
mass audience watches simultaneously.

To paraphrase McLuhan, as the medium of our time - computer networks -
is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and
every aspect of our personal life, the way video is disseminated is
changing.

TV is still possible with the internet, but it is a very minor way for
video to be published.

Just as theatre is still going, but in a very minor way compared to
the prominance it had because electric technology.
-
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 is TV?

[Brian Butterworth]

Compare the other international networks:

- Internet - peer-to-peer, mixed bandwidth, interactive
- PSTN* - one-to-one, fixed 64kbps bandwidth, switched
- TV - omnidirectional, high bandwidth, broadcast
- radio - omnidirectional, low bandwidth, broadcast

And these depreciated networks:

- telex - one-to-one, fixed ultralow bandwidth, switched
- X25 - one-to-one, fixed ultralow bandwidth, switched

PSTN=Public switched telephone network "cloud", POTS, Telex, mobiles, WAP,
viewdata
TV=TV, teletext, OpenTV, MHEG5 etc

2009/12/15 Brian Butterworth 

> Another way of looking at TV is that is the delivery of audio visual
> services using high capacity omnidirectional technology.
>
> 2009/12/15 Ian Stirling 
>
> Ian Stirling wrote:
>>
>>> Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>>
 Discuss.


>>> TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a
>>> large number of people over a significant distance watching one event.
>>>
>>>
>> Or to be more accurate, simultanenous reception of a television program
>> service licenced under the appropriate act of parlianment.
>>
>> (at least for some legal definitions)
>>
>> -
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Brian Butterworth
>
> follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
> web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
> advice, since 2002
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] What is TV?

[Brian Butterworth]

Another way of looking at TV is that is the delivery of audio visual
services using high capacity omnidirectional technology.

2009/12/15 Ian Stirling 

> Ian Stirling wrote:
>
>> Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>
>>> Discuss.
>>>
>>>
>> TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a
>> large number of people over a significant distance watching one event.
>>
>>
> Or to be more accurate, simultanenous reception of a television program
> service licenced under the appropriate act of parlianment.
>
> (at least for some legal definitions)
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] What is TV?

[Ian Stirling]

Ian Stirling wrote:

Mo McRoberts wrote:

Discuss.



TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a 
large number of people over a significant distance watching one event.




Or to be more accurate, simultanenous reception of a television program 
service licenced under the appropriate act of parlianment.


(at least for some legal definitions)
-
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 is TV?

[Ian Stirling]

Mo McRoberts wrote:

Discuss.



TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a 
large number of people over a significant distance watching one event.


-
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 is TV?

[Brian Butterworth]

2009/12/14 Mo McRoberts 

>
> On 14-Dec-2009, at 21:24, Brian Butterworth wrote:
>
> > That's what people who haven't bought a computer yet do, isn't it pops?
>  Where people wait to be provided what's given?  Don't they use a tube or
> something?
>
> That’s “a TV”, the device. what is “TV” the medium?
>

Eddie Izzard and a Ouija Board?


>
> :)
>
> --
> mo mcroberts
> http://nevali.net
> iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com  Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net  Twitter: @nevali
>
> Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook -
> http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

Re: [backstage] What is TV?

[Tim Dobson]

Mo McRoberts wrote:
> Discuss.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TV

Ends.
-
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 is TV?

[Mo McRoberts]

On 14-Dec-2009, at 21:24, Brian Butterworth wrote:

> That's what people who haven't bought a computer yet do, isn't it pops?  
> Where people wait to be provided what's given?  Don't they use a tube or 
> something?

That’s “a TV”, the device. what is “TV” the medium?

:)

-- 
mo mcroberts
http://nevali.net
iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com  Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net  Twitter: @nevali

Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - 
http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/









-
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 is TV?

[Brian Butterworth]

That's what people who haven't bought a computer yet do, isn't it pops?
 Where people wait to be provided what's given?  Don't they use a tube or
something?

2009/12/14 Mo McRoberts 

> Discuss.
>
> --
> mo mcroberts
> http://nevali.net
> iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com  Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net  Twitter: @nevali
>
> Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook -
> http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 

Brian Butterworth

follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist
web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
advice, since 2002

[backstage] What is TV?

[Mo McRoberts]

Discuss.

-- 
mo mcroberts
http://nevali.net
iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com  Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net  Twitter: @nevali

Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - 
http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/









-
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/