Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM, RS wrote: > My initial reaction was that it was too early to worry about this. When we > had problems with Segment not found errors in HLS, that was at a holiday > time and many programmes were corrected within a week of broadcast. > Worryingly the number of programmes with no HLS modes is increasing. Even > more ominous is that Flash modes also seem to be being withdrawn. And now Come Home episode 3 seems to have no HLS version :( I am looking at transcoding to HEVC here to save the lost disk space. Will have to wait and see if quality is acceptable.. S. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Hi CJB, > is the overly-LOUD dramatic music. This is so loud that the narrator > cannot be heard The production companies paid by the BBC put `plinkity-plink' music over all the speech audio, not just narration, and not just to add drama. It seems to be for no good reason; similar to a presenter having to show they can walk and talk at the same time instead of just being a talking head. It all `adds interest'. Presumably because of lack of confidence in the spoken matter. Given, outside of iPlayer, I can watch a foreign film and choose the audio stream, e.g. German or dubbed English, and then choose the subtitle stream similarly, it would be nice if iPlayer offered two audio tracks with one having no needless muzak. This would be a bonus feature over broadcast, and the Beeb could gather stats on preference. They've the clout to insist production companies hand over the tinkle-free audio. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 08/04/18 17:22, Alan Milewczyk wrote: Interestingly enough there's a posting today on the support forum which wonders whether hlshd is being phased out as the "BBC isn't making programs available in hlshd (720p 25fps), only dvfhd and hvfhd (720p 50fps) for HD. The list includes: Latest episodes of The Film Review, Click, BBC News at Six, BBC Weekend News and Episodes 7 and 8 of Below the Surface (Episodes 1-6 of Below the Surfaces are available in hlshd)." My initial reaction was that it was too early to worry about this. When we had problems with Segment not found errors in HLS, that was at a holiday time and many programmes were corrected within a week of broadcast. Worryingly the number of programmes with no HLS modes is increasing. Even more ominous is that Flash modes also seem to be being withdrawn. To take Ordeal by Innocence as an example, both episodes 1 and 2 now have editorial versions. Episode 1 has hlshd1 and flashhd1 modes. Episode 2 has neither. If anyone wants to check the availability of Flash, you need to go back to get_iplayer v2.99, re-install rtmpdump and use --pid or --url. Best wishes Richard ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:39 PM, CJB wrote: > Not sure about loudness of narrators, what I find extremely irritating > - to the point of switching to another channel - is the overly-LOUD > dramatic music. This is so loud that the narrator cannot be heard, and > I then have to switch to using subtitles. God yes, I have only very mild hearing loss, but I do have hyperacusis, and (a) cannot tolerate the volume of the music, and (b) cannot make out the speech. They tell me that "object-based media" may one day solve this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/object-based-media Don't ask me why it couldn't have been built in to the DVB specs 20 years ago, at a coarse level all that would be required is to send speech separately from other sound, and have the receiver mix it. > And even Attenborough's > narration is not faultless - often his diction fades almost to silence > but then perks up later. This variability in sound levels is not due > to his unprofessionalism per se but sloppy sound engineering and > editing. CJB To be fair, he's 91, and his voice is weaker than it was a decade or two ago. Still would rather listen to him than mumbling twenty-something actors (never thought I'd start moaning about that before I hit 40!) S. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
In article <7495777d-626b-394b-be2d-5f2ca5f14...@tqvideo.co.uk>, Tony Quinn wrote: > Read this, and see what I mean > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/ Thanks for the reference. FWIW I've started downloading a series where the 1st episode was 25fps at the higher image 'size' but the second only available at 50fps. So I compared them and was surprised that I didn't actually notice much difference in the visible level of detail. But then I do have lousy eyesight. :-) I have in the past been quite sensitivie to 'flicker' with ye olde CRT monitors (for computer use). But I am much less bothered by 'jerky' images which seem to show up on some 25fps material. (My guess is that this is due to large blocks being juddered because of the limit on the data rate.) I remain puzzled, though, but the apparent decision to take away the *choice* of having the larger resolution at 25fps. Jim -- Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Not sure about loudness of narrators, what I find extremely irritating - to the point of switching to another channel - is the overly-LOUD dramatic music. This is so loud that the narrator cannot be heard, and I then have to switch to using subtitles. And even Attenborough's narration is not faultless - often his diction fades almost to silence but then perks up later. This variability in sound levels is not due to his unprofessionalism per se but sloppy sound engineering and editing. CJB On 10/04/2018, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Tony, > >> Read this, and see what I mean >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/ > > Thanks, interesting, though I didn't grasp it all on first reading. > > Don't suppose you know of a good article explaining why the narrator in > BBC programmes is perceived as always being louder than the other voices > despite Aunty insisting they're the same? :-) > > -- > Cheers, Ralph. > https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer > ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Hi Tony, > Read this, and see what I mean > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/ Thanks, interesting, though I didn't grasp it all on first reading. Don't suppose you know of a good article explaining why the narrator in BBC programmes is perceived as always being louder than the other voices despite Aunty insisting they're the same? :-) -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Sorry, should've been the PCC (Press Complaints Commission)! On 10/04/2018 00:15, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: In fact, they're probably even less reliable than the Daily Fail - at least the latter are occasionally brought to book by the IPCC, whereas blugger-land (deliberate mistype) has no such oversight ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Please see below ... On 09/04/2018 21:13, Tony Quinn wrote: On 09/04/2018 20:37, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: > > I will, but 'The Register' has sometimes proved to be a very unreliable source of scientific information, so I wouldn't expect it necessarily to be a good source of technical information either. What that actually means is that if it doesn't agree with my amateur assessment and biases, it's inaccurate. My, we are aggressive today ... What that means is EXACTLY what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less - YOU may care to read THESE, YOU may learn something, like why The Register is so often linked to by Global Warming denialists: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.d-i-y/vnQVeCra7ow[1-25] (note particularly the first two posts by Roger Chapman, and the first by Martin Brown) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.d-i-y/m8UVfh0QueU (note particularly my own post as Java Jive debunking both the original The Register's article and Terry Fields uncritical linking to it) The simple fact is that The Register is not a reliable source for any matter related to certain areas of science such as climate change. In fact, they're probably even less reliable than the Daily Fail - at least the latter are occasionally brought to book by the IPCC, whereas blugger-land (deliberate mistype) has no such oversight. It's a John Watkinson article - he is NOT unreliable or an amateur, and, given your patently obvious lack of knowledge, you might actually learn something by reading it. May be, but I have enough knowledge to observe that even an article by John Watkinson can still contain an error! "Eye tracking causes interlace to fail in television. The two fields that make a frame are presented at different times so to a moving eye the odd and even lines are never going to fit back together, and they don’t, except for marketing purposes." That is really only valid if the original source was filmed as uninterlaced, and is being broadcast as interlaced, but, as I have understood from others who like yourself who have industry experience, historically most analogue TV was recorded as interlaced, so the two fields in each frame represent different points in time, and so absolutely should not be *expected* to fit back together (and accordingly I would argue that the concept of 'frame' has no real meaning in this situation)! That said, I agree with the general thrust of the article, but with the proviso that, to go back to my original (corrected) assertion that 1080p25 would be better than 720p50, I suspect it depends what you like watching. If, like me, you like watching slow pans across beautiful landscapes, like some Natural History documentaries, the Hubble DVD, or the foreign satellite TV channel that overnight shows shots of Earth from the Space Station, I suspect that would indeed be true, but if you want to watch the World Cup, I don't suppose that it would! ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
I have read it, and it does discuss the issue I raised. 50p is not necessarily 50p when your display has finish motion interpolating it (or not as the case may be). Just because people don't come away from an article agreeing with you completely does not mean they did not read and understand it. I spent 5 years working in the IPTV industry, watching customers butcher image quality so they could squeeze another TV stream down an ADSL line. I do know what I'm talking about. The article failed to mention the angle subtended at the eye. Pixel resolution is partly about whether you can see them. Sit a mile away and you can only see one apparent pixel. Sit next to a 60 inch TV and you can see all the pixels, and you need a higher frame rate to not perceive flicker due to the greater angle subtended at the eye. Also sensitivity to flicker varies with different people. I am very sensitive to it. Back in the days of CRT monitors as the size of the displays went up and the persistence of the phosphors went down over the years (to satisfy gamers who insisted on no visible motion blur) I kept having to push frame rates up. By the time I was on a 19 inch monitor at the end of the the CRT era the phosphor persistence was so damned short that anything less than 120Hz refresh would give me splitting headaches and as a computer programmer that isn't good. The "sample and hold" nature of LCDs saved me from this, they are a godsend. -- Owen Smith Cambridge, UK > On 9 Apr 2018, at 21:48, Tony Quinn wrote: > > Read the John Watkinson article. > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 09/04/2018 21:37, Owen Smith wrote: Before you get all fussy about 50i, 50p or 25p you need to look at what your display is doing to that. Most people are viewing on LCDs these days, and these have a "sample and hold" nature of their own and run at a particular frame rate. So you may find everything is being re-sampled to 30p or 60p or who knows what for display on the panel. My point is you likely don't know the LCD frame rate (I don't know any of mine), and it has implications on statements like "50p is better than 25p" which may or may not be true after what the panel does to it. Your preferred frame rate may even be a result of whatever input frame rate is less butchered by your panel on conversion for display. Read the John Watkinson article. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Before you get all fussy about 50i, 50p or 25p you need to look at what your display is doing to that. Most people are viewing on LCDs these days, and these have a "sample and hold" nature of their own and run at a particular frame rate. So you may find everything is being re-sampled to 30p or 60p or who knows what for display on the panel. My point is you likely don't know the LCD frame rate (I don't know any of mine), and it has implications on statements like "50p is better than 25p" which may or may not be true after what the panel does to it. Your preferred frame rate may even be a result of whatever input frame rate is less butchered by your panel on conversion for display. -- Owen Smith Cambridge, UK > On 9 Apr 2018, at 19:22, Tony Quinn wrote: > > > >> On 09/04/2018 18:34, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: >> Please see below ... >> >>> On 09/04/2018 16:54, Tony Quinn wrote: >>> On 09/04/2018 16:23, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Can't see the logic, if there is any?! Surely, for the same disk space and bandwidth, the customer viewer would get a better download from 1440 25fps rather than 720 50fps? >>> It doesn't scale quite like that . in professional terms, 1080p25 is >>> the same data rate as 720p50 >> >> Yes, I can see that that might be so, but I don't think it alters the thrust >> of my argument, does it? Wouldn't 1080p25 still be better to watch than >> 720p50? >> > > Not "MIGHT be so" . ***IS*** so - having spent 35 years as an engineer in > broadcast TV (some of it at the BBC) , I've heard too many bloody amateurs > dismiss the physics/maths with phrases like "might be so, but..." > > In my opinion 25p has a nasty "cinematic" feel to it (50i is better) - 50p > has smoother movement. > > Added to which just having eyes (which are not stationary) reduces the > spatial resolution by the square root of 2 in each direction - increasing > temporal resolution is much more effective at convincing the brain that > something is "better". > > Read this, and see what I mean > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/ > > > > > ___ > get_iplayer mailing list > get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 09/04/2018 20:37, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: > > I will, but 'The Register' has sometimes proved to be a very unreliable source of scientific information, so I wouldn't expect it necessarily to be a good source of technical information either. > What that actually means is that if it doesn't agree with my amateur assessment and biases, it's inaccurate. It's a John Watkinson article - he is NOT unreliable or an amateur, and, given your patently obvious lack of knowledge, you might actually learn something by reading it. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Please see below ... On 09/04/2018 19:22, Tony Quinn wrote: Not "MIGHT be so" . ***IS*** so - having spent 35 years as an engineer in broadcast TV (some of it at the BBC) , I've heard too many bloody amateurs dismiss the physics/maths with phrases like "might be so, but..." Alright, don't get shirty. The reason I said 'might be so' was precisely because I was conceding your point without having your experience to say anything more definite. Also, as a result of your reply, I realised that, through lack of thought, I'd made a schoolboy error in my original assertion - if you double the vertical resolution, to maintain the aspect ration you also have to double the horizontal, so that in fact you're quadrupling the bitrate, not doubling it. However, that led me to realise that to double it, you'd have to multiply each resolution by the square root of two, which is 1.414, but 1.414 x720 ~ 1020, not 1080, hence 'might be so'. In my opinion 25p has a nasty "cinematic" feel to it (50i is better) - 50p has smoother movement. Added to which just having eyes (which are not stationary) reduces the spatial resolution by the square root of 2 in each direction - increasing temporal resolution is much more effective at convincing the brain that something is "better". Read this, and see what I mean https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/ I will, but 'The Register' has sometimes proved to be a very unreliable source of scientific information, so I wouldn't expect it necessarily to be a good source of technical information either. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 09/04/2018 19:00, Steve Dodd wrote: On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:34 PM, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Yes, I can see that that might be so, but I don't think it alters the thrust of my argument, does it? Wouldn't 1080p25 still be better to watch than 720p50? Brains are weird things, could easily depend on viewing device (as I think earlier linked article mentioned.) For some reason motion blur seems to be _more_ noticeable with higher res content (there's a technical name for the effect which escapes me), so it may well not be clear cut. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/ ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 09/04/2018 18:34, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Please see below ... On 09/04/2018 16:54, Tony Quinn wrote: On 09/04/2018 16:23, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Can't see the logic, if there is any?! Surely, for the same disk space and bandwidth, the customer viewer would get a better download from 1440 25fps rather than 720 50fps? It doesn't scale quite like that . in professional terms, 1080p25 is the same data rate as 720p50 Yes, I can see that that might be so, but I don't think it alters the thrust of my argument, does it? Wouldn't 1080p25 still be better to watch than 720p50? Not "MIGHT be so" . ***IS*** so - having spent 35 years as an engineer in broadcast TV (some of it at the BBC) , I've heard too many bloody amateurs dismiss the physics/maths with phrases like "might be so, but..." In my opinion 25p has a nasty "cinematic" feel to it (50i is better) - 50p has smoother movement. Added to which just having eyes (which are not stationary) reduces the spatial resolution by the square root of 2 in each direction - increasing temporal resolution is much more effective at convincing the brain that something is "better". Read this, and see what I mean https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/ ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:34 PM, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: > Yes, I can see that that might be so, but I don't think it alters the thrust > of my argument, does it? Wouldn't 1080p25 still be better to watch than > 720p50? Brains are weird things, could easily depend on viewing device (as I think earlier linked article mentioned.) For some reason motion blur seems to be _more_ noticeable with higher res content (there's a technical name for the effect which escapes me), so it may well not be clear cut. S. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Please see below ... On 09/04/2018 16:54, Tony Quinn wrote: On 09/04/2018 16:23, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Can't see the logic, if there is any?! Surely, for the same disk space and bandwidth, the customer viewer would get a better download from 1440 25fps rather than 720 50fps? It doesn't scale quite like that . in professional terms, 1080p25 is the same data rate as 720p50 Yes, I can see that that might be so, but I don't think it alters the thrust of my argument, does it? Wouldn't 1080p25 still be better to watch than 720p50? ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 09/04/2018 16:23, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Please see below ... On 08/04/2018 17:22, Alan Milewczyk wrote: Interestingly enough there's a posting today on the support forum which wonders whether hlshd is being phased out as the "BBC isn't making programs available in hlshd (720p 25fps), only dvfhd and hvfhd (720p 50fps) for HD. The list includes: Can't see the logic, if there is any?! Surely, for the same disk space and bandwidth, the customer viewer would get a better download from 1440 25fps rather than 720 50fps? It doesn't scale quite like that . in professional terms, 1080p25 is the same data rate as 720p50 ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Please see below ... On 08/04/2018 17:22, Alan Milewczyk wrote: Interestingly enough there's a posting today on the support forum which wonders whether hlshd is being phased out as the "BBC isn't making programs available in hlshd (720p 25fps), only dvfhd and hvfhd (720p 50fps) for HD. The list includes: Can't see the logic, if there is any?! Surely, for the same disk space and bandwidth, the customer viewer would get a better download from 1440 25fps rather than 720 50fps? Regards, C E Macfarlane. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 08/04/2018 10:36, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Please see below ... On 06/04/2018 16:21, Alan Milewczyk wrote: On 06/04/2018 13:37, David Cantrell wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:45:50PM +0100, Alan Milewczyk wrote: Notwithstanding this, Charles was making the point that, from time to time, in a series we might have some programmes at one mode and others at another mode. Some consistency across a series should not be too much to ask for! Could it be that some episodes contain archive footage that is available only in some resolutions? Maybe in some cases however Episode 2 was available in hlshd in 2013 but not this year! And the muddled shambles continues, the best available format for Nature's Microworlds Episode 3 is hvfxsd, so that's: Episode 1 hlshd 500MB Episode 2 hvfhd 1134MB Episode 3 hvfxsd 400MB What a pig's dinner! Interestingly enough there's a posting today on the support forum which wonders whether hlshd is being phased out as the "BBC isn't making programs available in hlshd (720p 25fps), only dvfhd and hvfhd (720p 50fps) for HD. The list includes: Latest episodes of The Film Review, Click, BBC News at Six, BBC Weekend News and Episodes 7 and 8 of Below the Surface (Episodes 1-6 of Below the Surfaces are available in hlshd)." A --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Please see below ... On 06/04/2018 16:21, Alan Milewczyk wrote: On 06/04/2018 13:37, David Cantrell wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:45:50PM +0100, Alan Milewczyk wrote: Notwithstanding this, Charles was making the point that, from time to time, in a series we might have some programmes at one mode and others at another mode. Some consistency across a series should not be too much to ask for! Could it be that some episodes contain archive footage that is available only in some resolutions? Maybe in some cases however Episode 2 was available in hlshd in 2013 but not this year! And the muddled shambles continues, the best available format for Nature's Microworlds Episode 3 is hvfxsd, so that's: Episode 1 hlshd 500MB Episode 2 hvfhd 1134MB Episode 3 hvfxsd 400MB What a pig's dinner! ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Please see below ... On 06/04/2018 16:07, David Cantrell wrote: On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:01:11PM +0100, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: For many things, that would be true, but for the sort of big Hollywood films that I mentioned, I doubt if there can be any doubt who the current rights holders are. Apart from anything else, the original rights holders are usually in the credits, and thence would be comparatively easy to trace through to the present day, You must have missed the bit I didn't miss it, for the type of material that was in my original list, I just didn't agree with you for the reasons given! And actually the original holders are often *not* in the credits. Most works don't have the several minutes of lists of names that appear at the end of modern films. And for content that is made for TV the credits are even today very incomplete. But again, not true of the material I listed. and, after all, the BBC must have obtained or be obtaining the media copy that they broadcast from somewhere of known provenance, presumably from the rights holders themselves, or someone acting on their behalf. Wherever they're getting them from may not have rights for online dissemination to the public, which just gets us back to the previous problem. Broadcast rights and online rights are not the same thing. Which was my original complaint, because it leads to the absurdities that I gave of 50 year old films not being available for download while other much more recent ones are. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 06/04/2018 16:07, David Cantrell wrote: Broadcast rights and online rights are not the same thing. Absolutely. I suspect this is the reason why so much material on Channel 4's excellent "All4.com" under the "Walter Presents" tag is only available online, rather than being broadcast on Channel 4 or More 4. A --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 06/04/2018 13:37, David Cantrell wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:45:50PM +0100, Alan Milewczyk wrote: Notwithstanding this, Charles was making the point that, from time to time, in a series we might have some programmes at one mode and others at another mode. Some consistency across a series should not be too much to ask for! Could it be that some episodes contain archive footage that is available only in some resolutions? Maybe in some cases however Episode 2 was available in hlshd in 2013 but not this year! A --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:01:11PM +0100, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: > For many things, that would be true, but for the sort of big Hollywood > films that I mentioned, I doubt if there can be any doubt who the > current rights holders are. Apart from anything else, the original > rights holders are usually in the credits, and thence would be > comparatively easy to trace through to the present day, You must have missed the bit where I wrote about the difficulties of tracing the heirs of the heirs of rights-holders, and of tracking what exactly they were able to leave to their heirs and what they had sold outright and to whom. And actually the original holders are often *not* in the credits. Most works don't have the several minutes of lists of names that appear at the end of modern films. And for content that is made for TV the credits are even today very incomplete. > and, after all, > the BBC must have obtained or be obtaining the media copy that they > broadcast from somewhere of known provenance, presumably from the rights > holders themselves, or someone acting on their behalf. Wherever they're getting them from may not have rights for online dissemination to the public, which just gets us back to the previous problem. Broadcast rights and online rights are not the same thing. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Some good points, please see below ... On 06/04/2018 13:27, David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:58:44PM +0100, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: And that's not to mention the absurdity of not being allowed to download a 40-50 year old B&W version of 'Pride & Prejudice', or the 50 year old 'Funny Girl' & 43 year old 'Funny Lady', because of rights issues - how many extra DVD sales do the rights holders expect to get by disallowing this? The BBC has no choice but to respect the rights holders rights, and if they didn't get online rights for the content then they *can't* put the stuff online. Obviously! You could argue that they jolly well ought to get those rights, but then you have three issues. First, the owner of those rights can say "ooh, we never knew this was worth anything to anybody, we demand one blion spondulicks" and refuse to see reason and accept that Grandpa's work is just not worth much. I suspect THAT is the major problem - as I indicated in my post, some rights holders have unrealistic expectations for works that are around half-a-century old or older. Second, tracking down the current owner of the rights is Hard after that long, given that companies have been liquidated, gone out of business, been bought and sold, and that people have died and left their rights (often not listed in detail) to heirs who will often have died themselves (leaving even fewer details about the rights they inherited from their parents). For many things, that would be true, but for the sort of big Hollywood films that I mentioned, I doubt if there can be any doubt who the current rights holders are. Apart from anything else, the original rights holders are usually in the credits, and thence would be comparatively easy to trace through to the present day, and, after all, the BBC must have obtained or be obtaining the media copy that they broadcast from somewhere of known provenance, presumably from the rights holders themselves, or someone acting on their behalf. Third, the BBC doesn't have complete records of who owned the rights half a century ago which makes the second problem even harder. Back then no-one knew that anyone would care. And when they do have records they've probably not been digitised so they don't know that they have the records or where they are and certainly can't find them. But, as above, they must be obtaining their copy from somewhere, presumably somewhere of acceptable provenance, because I doubt that they would broadcast anything of doubtful provenance, and certainly not anything as significant as a film. That second one in particular is a major pain in the arse. I've been trying off and on for several years to track down the current owners of the copyright in a particular out of print book that I would like to re-publish. And for a book with only two authors and one publisher it should be easy compared to a TV programme with writers, actors, directors, composers, ... Yes, I am familiar with this problem, because I have a long-standing interest in music, particularly folk music, and many labels of as recently as the 1980s have gone bust, been bought out, merged, etc, making it very difficult to know who owns the copyright. There is one particularly notorious folk music label, Celtic Music, owned by the late Dave Bulmer, which claims ownership to much of the best folk albums (of course, in those days, vinyl LPs) of the 1970s and 1980s, but has refused to reissue most of them on CD, to the ire of the many artists involved. After Barbara Dickson's LP "From The Beggar's Banquet ...", which since *has* been rereleased on CD, his most famous casualty was probably Nic Jones, who in the late 80s when driving home from a gig had a serious car smash which prematurely ended his career, and therefore, in the absence of profit from ongoing work, he had particular need of his back catalogue to support him and his family, but never earned a penny from it once it reached the claimed ownership of DB. I don't wish to drag the thread any more off topic by saying any more about this here, the more especially as too much already has been said about it in a vituperous online flame war, but I am very familiar with the sort of problems that you raise. But there is also another aspect to it, the theft of copyright by well-known artists in the west from either historical writers of the past, or from disadvantaged artists in poorer societies. Examples of the former are Bob Dylan, who, for example, rewrote the well-known traditional song "The Parting Glass" as "Restless Farewell", my printed copy of which claims "Words and music by Bob Dylan", even though the tune is the traditional one, the lyrics of the the first verse almost identical, and the general sentimental feel of the whole also identical. He also used the tune of "Farewell to Tarwathie" as the tune of "Farewell Angelina", etc, etc - most people who know anything about both Dyla
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 06/04/18 13:27, David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:58:44PM +0100, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: And that's not to mention the absurdity of not being allowed to download a 40-50 year old B&W version of 'Pride & Prejudice', or the 50 year old 'Funny Girl' & 43 year old 'Funny Lady', because of rights issues - how many extra DVD sales do the rights holders expect to get by disallowing this? The BBC has no choice but to respect the rights holders rights, and if they didn't get online rights for the content then they *can't* put the stuff online. You could argue that they jolly well ought to get those rights, but then you have three issues. First, the owner of those rights can say "ooh, we never knew this was worth anything to anybody, we demand one blion spondulicks" and refuse to see reason and accept that Grandpa's work is just not worth much. Second, tracking down the current owner of the rights is Hard after that long, given that companies have been liquidated, gone out of business, been bought and sold, and that people have died and left their rights (often not listed in detail) to heirs who will often have died themselves (leaving even fewer details about the rights they inherited from their parents). Third, the BBC doesn't have complete records of who owned the rights half a century ago which makes the second problem even harder. Back then no-one knew that anyone would care. And when they do have records they've probably not been digitised so they don't know that they have the records or where they are and certainly can't find them. That second one in particular is a major pain in the arse. I've been trying off and on for several years to track down the current owners of the copyright in a particular out of print book that I would like to re-publish. And for a book with only two authors and one publisher it should be easy compared to a TV programme with writers, actors, directors, composers, ... +1 to that I assume you can watch these movies via iPlayer, but not download them, which is the limit that BBC will do with them, down to the rights they ie BBC has. The OP should ask the license holders of the material. Plus its OT for this technical list. M ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:45:50PM +0100, Alan Milewczyk wrote: > Notwithstanding this, Charles was making the point that, from time to > time, in a series we might have some programmes at one mode and others > at another mode. Some consistency across a series should not be too much > to ask for! Could it be that some episodes contain archive footage that is available only in some resolutions? -- David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet Guns aren't the problem. People who deserve to die are the problem. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:58:44PM +0100, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: > And that's not to mention the absurdity of not being allowed to download > a 40-50 year old B&W version of 'Pride & Prejudice', or the 50 year old > 'Funny Girl' & 43 year old 'Funny Lady', because of rights issues - > how many extra DVD sales do the rights holders expect to get by > disallowing this? The BBC has no choice but to respect the rights holders rights, and if they didn't get online rights for the content then they *can't* put the stuff online. You could argue that they jolly well ought to get those rights, but then you have three issues. First, the owner of those rights can say "ooh, we never knew this was worth anything to anybody, we demand one blion spondulicks" and refuse to see reason and accept that Grandpa's work is just not worth much. Second, tracking down the current owner of the rights is Hard after that long, given that companies have been liquidated, gone out of business, been bought and sold, and that people have died and left their rights (often not listed in detail) to heirs who will often have died themselves (leaving even fewer details about the rights they inherited from their parents). Third, the BBC doesn't have complete records of who owned the rights half a century ago which makes the second problem even harder. Back then no-one knew that anyone would care. And when they do have records they've probably not been digitised so they don't know that they have the records or where they are and certainly can't find them. That second one in particular is a major pain in the arse. I've been trying off and on for several years to track down the current owners of the copyright in a particular out of print book that I would like to re-publish. And for a book with only two authors and one publisher it should be easy compared to a TV programme with writers, actors, directors, composers, ... -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. -- Robert A Heinlein ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 05/04/2018 10:41, RS wrote: On 04/04/18 23:58, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: I do wish the BBC would get their act together, this is by no means the first time that this sort of thing has happened - others include: > ... The BBC's policy is set out in http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2015-07-the-development-of-new-video-factory-profiles-for-bbc-iplayer Notwithstanding this, Charles was making the point that, from time to time, in a series we might have some programmes at one mode and others at another mode. Some consistency across a series should not be too much to ask for! A --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 05/04/2018 10:41, RS wrote: The BBC's policy is set out in http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2015-07-the-development-of-new-video-factory-profiles-for-bbc-iplayer (an article I have linked to before). I'd forgotten about this document! Thanks for reminding us. HLShd does not appear in the table of Video and Audio profiles because, "To enable resolution, bit-rate and encoding optimisations to be made to the new encoding profiles, a test tape of representative content at varying encoding difficulties was produced by BBC R&D. This test tape was designed to test the encoder performance, using a range of content and included clips, from popular shows such as Strictly Come Dancing, East Enders and Top Gear." HLShd is only supported as a legacy mode, and only by the Akamai CDN, so we could lose it altogether. To be honest the one I'd like to see (rather than 960x540p/50 or 1280x720p/50) is 1920x1080i/25 but that's not available AFAIK. A --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 04/04/18 23:58, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Please see below ... On 04/04/2018 22:16, Alan Milewczyk wrote: On 04/04/2018 22:03, I wrote: It looks as though the best 25fps resolution you can get is hvfxsd, 960x540. It is quite common for older programmes only to be available in HVF and DVF 50fps modes for HD resolutions, and not to have a hlshd mode. The same applies to outside broadcasts. Doesn't explain why hlshd was available for episodes 1 and 2 in 2013/4. Nor that I was able to download Ep 1 in hafhd or hlshd a couple of days ago. Rant, which may be safely ignored: I do wish the BBC would get their act together, this is by no means the first time that this sort of thing has happened - others include: > ... The BBC's policy is set out in http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2015-07-the-development-of-new-video-factory-profiles-for-bbc-iplayer (an article I have linked to before). HLShd does not appear in the table of Video and Audio profiles because, "To enable resolution, bit-rate and encoding optimisations to be made to the new encoding profiles, a test tape of representative content at varying encoding difficulties was produced by BBC R&D. This test tape was designed to test the encoder performance, using a range of content and included clips, from popular shows such as Strictly Come Dancing, East Enders and Top Gear." HLShd is only supported as a legacy mode, and only by the Akamai CDN, so we could lose it altogether. When I said many outside broadcasts did not have a HLShd mode, I should have said many red button programmes. Outside broadcasts which have been shown on mainstream channels do at present mostly have HLShd modes. Best wishes Richard ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
Please see below ... On 04/04/2018 22:16, Alan Milewczyk wrote: On 04/04/2018 22:03, RS wrote: On 04/04/18 19:27, Alan Milewczyk wrote: On 04/04/2018 16:12, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Hi, Was able to download the previous day's Episode 1 as hafhd, but seemingly can only download Episode 2 as hvfhd at twice the disk space. Has anyone else been able to download Ep 2 as hafhd or hlshd? Afraid not. I tried to download this series in 2013 and 2104. I did get this episode at hlshd but the others in the series apart from Episode 1 are all at 832x468. It looks as though the best 25fps resolution you can get is hvfxsd, 960x540. It is quite common for older programmes only to be available in HVF and DVF 50fps modes for HD resolutions, and not to have a hlshd mode. The same applies to outside broadcasts. Doesn't explain why hlshd was available for episodes 1 and 2 in 2013/4. Nor that I was able to download Ep 1 in hafhd or hlshd a couple of days ago. Rant, which may be safely ignored: I do wish the BBC would get their act together, this is by no means the first time that this sort of thing has happened - others include: Story of Maths - 2 episodes in SD, 2 in HD; Yellowstone - repeated once in HD, but ever since in SD; Attenborough's Life series - some episodes of a series in HD most, as might be expected, in SD; Missing episodes from repeated series - various series as sometimes discussed here; ... etc. Then there are the perfectly good series that never get repeated, such as America, Civilisation, Earth Story, Wild Caribbean, etc, so instead the same batch of programmes from the last decade or so get endlessly recycled. And that's not to mention the absurdity of not being allowed to download a 40-50 year old B&W version of 'Pride & Prejudice', or the 50 year old 'Funny Girl' & 43 year old 'Funny Lady', because of rights issues - how many extra DVD sales do the rights holders expect to get by disallowing this? At any rate, I can promise them that they won't be getting any more money out of me at my time of life! Regards, Charles. ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 04/04/2018 22:03, RS wrote: On 04/04/18 19:27, Alan Milewczyk wrote: On 04/04/2018 16:12, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Hi, Was able to download the previous day's Episode 1 as hafhd, but seemingly can only download Episode 2 as hvfhd at twice the disk space. Has anyone else been able to download Ep 2 as hafhd or hlshd? Afraid not. I tried to download this series in 2013 and 2104. I did get this episode at hlshd but the others in the series apart from Episode 1 are all at 832x468. A It looks as though the best 25fps resolution you can get is hvfxsd, 960x540. It is quite common for older programmes only to be available in HVF and DVF 50fps modes for HD resolutions, and not to have a hlshd mode. The same applies to outside broadcasts. Doesn't explain why hlshd was available for episodes 1 and 2 in 2013/4. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 04/04/18 19:27, Alan Milewczyk wrote: On 04/04/2018 16:12, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Hi, Was able to download the previous day's Episode 1 as hafhd, but seemingly can only download Episode 2 as hvfhd at twice the disk space. Has anyone else been able to download Ep 2 as hafhd or hlshd? Afraid not. I tried to download this series in 2013 and 2104. I did get this episode at hlshd but the others in the series apart from Episode 1 are all at 832x468. A It looks as though the best 25fps resolution you can get is hvfxsd, 960x540. It is quite common for older programmes only to be available in HVF and DVF 50fps modes for HD resolutions, and not to have a hlshd mode. The same applies to outside broadcasts. You won't get hafhd because hafhigh, hafmed, hafstd and haflow are radio modes. Best wishes Richard ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Re: Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
On 04/04/2018 16:12, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote: Hi, Was able to download the previous day's Episode 1 as hafhd, but seemingly can only download Episode 2 as hvfhd at twice the disk space. Has anyone else been able to download Ep 2 as hafhd or hlshd? Afraid not. I tried to download this series in 2013 and 2104. I did get this episode at hlshd but the others in the series apart from Episode 1 are all at 832x468. A --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
