Discussion:
Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-04 15:12:44 UTC
Permalink
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?

Regards,
C E Macfarlane
Alan Milewczyk
2018-04-04 18:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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
RS
2018-04-04 21:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Milewczyk
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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
Alan Milewczyk
2018-04-04 21:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by RS
Post by Alan Milewczyk
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-04 22:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Please see below ...
Post by Alan Milewczyk
Post by RS
Post by Alan Milewczyk
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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.
RS
2018-04-05 09:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
Please see below ...
Post by Alan Milewczyk
Post by RS
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.
I do wish the BBC would get their act together, this is by no means the
...
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
Alan Milewczyk
2018-04-05 12:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RS
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.
Post by RS
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
Alan Milewczyk
2018-04-05 12:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by RS
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
I do wish the BBC would get their act together, this is by no means
...
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
David Cantrell
2018-04-06 12:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Milewczyk
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.
Alan Milewczyk
2018-04-06 15:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Alan Milewczyk
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
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-08 09:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Please see below ...
Post by Alan Milewczyk
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Alan Milewczyk
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!
Alan Milewczyk
2018-04-08 16:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
Please see below ...
Post by Alan Milewczyk
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Alan Milewczyk
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
    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
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-09 15:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Please see below ...
Post by Alan Milewczyk
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
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.
Tony Quinn
2018-04-09 15:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
Please see below ...
Post by Alan Milewczyk
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
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
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-09 17:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Please see below ...
Post by Tony Quinn
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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?
Steve Dodd
2018-04-09 18:00:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:34 PM, MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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.
Tony Quinn
2018-04-09 18:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Dodd
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:34 PM, MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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/
Tony Quinn
2018-04-09 18:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
Please see below ...
Post by Tony Quinn
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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/
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-09 19:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Please see below ...
Post by Tony Quinn
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'.
Post by Tony Quinn
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.
Tony Quinn
2018-04-09 20:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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.
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-09 23:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Please see below ...
Post by Tony Quinn
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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.
Post by Tony Quinn
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!
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-10 14:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, should've been the PCC (Press Complaints Commission)!
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
Owen Smith
2018-04-09 20:37:57 UTC
Permalink
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 <***@cantab.net>
Cambridge, UK
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
Please see below ...
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
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Tony Quinn
2018-04-09 20:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Owen Smith
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.
Owen Smith
2018-04-09 21:04:29 UTC
Permalink
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 <***@cantab.net>
Cambridge, UK
Read the John Watkinson article.
_______________________________________________
get_iplayer mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Ralph Corderoy
2018-04-10 15:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Tony,
Post by Tony Quinn
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
CJB
2018-04-10 15:39:47 UTC
Permalink
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
Post by Ralph Corderoy
Hi Tony,
Post by Tony Quinn
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
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
Steve Dodd
2018-04-10 16:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJB
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.
Post by CJB
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.
Ralph Corderoy
2018-04-10 17:17:07 UTC
Permalink
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
Jim web
2018-04-10 14:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Quinn
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
RS
2018-04-10 16:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Milewczyk
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
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
Steve Dodd
2018-04-11 11:49:58 UTC
Permalink
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.

David Cantrell
2018-04-06 12:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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 beeeelion 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
michael norman
2018-04-06 12:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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 beeeelion 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
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-06 14:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Some good points, please see below ...
Post by David Cantrell
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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!
Post by David Cantrell
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 beeeelion 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.
Post by David Cantrell
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.
Post by David Cantrell
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.
Post by David Cantrell
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 Dylan and traditional songs can give you at least half-a-dozen
examples more or less without thought.  Another example is Richard
Farina's claiming of copyright for "Scarlet Town", but most of the
lyrics and the melody were about a century old at the time!

But in those and similar cases, the original artists were long dead, so
it could be argued that no-one is suffering, although actually that's
not true, because it takes the songs out of the general pool of material
that we all should be able to perform without paying royalties, but
certainly the most flagrant outrages are copyright theft from living
artists, probably the worst case being the theft of Solomon Linda's
copyright of "Mbube"/"The Lion Sleeps Tonight"/"Wimoweh", to use the
three best known of its many titles. Rian Malan’s story for Rolling
Stone Magazine recounts the racist and plagiaristic exploitation of it:
http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html. If you are sufficiently
interested to want to read that link, then you will see what I mean when
I talk about rights holders' greed!  However, I should point out that,
finally, there is better news:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5300359

Regards,
C E Macfarlane.
David Cantrell
2018-04-06 15:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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.
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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
Alan Milewczyk
2018-04-06 15:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
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
MacFH - C E Macfarlane
2018-04-06 15:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Please see below ...
Post by David Cantrell
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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!
Post by David Cantrell
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.
Post by David Cantrell
Post by MacFH - C E Macfarlane
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.
Loading...