And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:51:42 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:12:19 -0000, "Phil Cook v2"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Indeed one of the problems was that the VCR signal was very close to the
>> brand-new Channel 5's frequency causing many complaints.
>
> Normally, with the help of a small screwdriver the output frequency of a  
> VCR can be changed :O

Yeah I could just see a population, who at the time couldn't even work a  
VCR, scrabbling about with a screwdriver ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> Not even then, they changed the rules - if you watch programmes via 
> something like the BBC's iPlayer which doesn't require a tuner of any 
> description you'll need a licence.

Do you have a reference, only reason I ask is that on the TV licensing 
website it says:

"You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long 
as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are 
viewing it."

To me that seems pretty clear that you don't need a license to use iPlayer.

Post a reply to this message

>> I assume then if they charge every household a fee for the privilege to 
>> watch TV, they don't have any advertisements?
>
> No - just not as *many* adverts. ;-)

Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from trailers 
for other BBC programs and services.  These usually come in the form of 1-3 
short trailers *between* each program, never during a program.

> (E.g., Formula 1 is coming back to the BBC, so now you can watch the 
> entire race without an advert break every 20 minutes. There will still be 
> a whole heap of adverts before it starts, and after it ends, just not 
> while the actual race is happening.)

From what I remember when F1 used to be on the BBC, you certainly got a good 
30 minutes of coverage before the race starts, and another good 30 minutes 
at the end.  Not a single advert (for another BBC product) in sight.  If you 
really hate the BBC adverts so much, then you can often just press the red 
button and watch sports that way, there you really see nothing apart from 
the actual event.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:30:06 -0000, "Phil Cook v2"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:51:42 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom>  
>did spake thusly:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:12:19 -0000, "Phil Cook v2"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed one of the problems was that the VCR signal was very close to the
>>> brand-new Channel 5's frequency causing many complaints.
>>
>> Normally, with the help of a small screwdriver the output frequency of a  
>> VCR can be changed :O
>
>Yeah I could just see a population, who at the time couldn't even work a  
>VCR, scrabbling about with a screwdriver ;-)
>

Well, they just get their 4 year olds to do it. As we all know "My 4 year old
can work the VCR better than I can" ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> None of the BBC channels feature adverts, except for themselves. The big 
> benefit those who moan about this 'tax' is that there exists two 
> children's channels (young-uns and not so young-uns) that have no 
> advertising.

The main benefit for me is sports, like tennis, Formula 1, snooker, darts, 
(some) football etc, that you get to see totally uninterupted and totally 
free from annoying adverts that they shove in your face at every opportunity 
on other channels.  If only there was some cricket on the BBC, and all 
sports were shown in HD then I'd probably even pay the license fee :-)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:38:15 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> Not even then, they changed the rules - if you watch programmes via  
>> something like the BBC's iPlayer which doesn't require a tuner of any  
>> description you'll need a licence.
>
> Do you have a reference, only reason I ask is that on the TV licensing  
> website it says:
>
> "You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as  
> long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time  
> as you are viewing it."
>
> To me that seems pretty clear that you don't need a license to use  
> iPlayer.

"The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (No. 692)

9 (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television  
programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any  
programme included in that service, where that programme is received at  
the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of  
the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that  
service."

The catch is the definition of "virtually". It also means you have to  
watch out when the BBC repeats stuff as it has recently done with somethng  
like Screenwipe (originally BBC4 now repeating on BBC1).

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:46:26 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> None of the BBC channels feature adverts, except for themselves. The  
>> big benefit those who moan about this 'tax' is that there exists two  
>> children's channels (young-uns and not so young-uns) that have no  
>> advertising.
>
> The main benefit for me is sports, like tennis, Formula 1, snooker,  
> darts, (some) football etc, that you get to see totally uninterupted and  
> totally free from annoying adverts that they shove in your face at every  
> opportunity on other channels.  If only there was some cricket on the  
> BBC, and all sports were shown in HD then I'd probably even pay the  
> license fee :-)

Heh well I'm not a sports fan, but I can appreciate your point of view; in  
much the same way I can appreciate it's nice to have children's channels  
without any nag your parents to buy this.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> I assume then if they charge every household a fee for the privilege 
>> to watch TV, they don't have any advertisements?
> 
> None of the BBC channels feature adverts, except for themselves. The big 
> benefit those who moan about this 'tax' is that there exists two 
> children's channels (young-uns and not so young-uns) that have no 
> advertising.
> 

That is nice. :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

> The catch is the definition of "virtually".

I would expect it to be there just to cover any transmission delays up to a 
few seconds, but you never know with these legal types, they'll probably 
argue that 1 hour later is "virtually the same time" :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.
> 
> I think almost every film has been recorded in HD for many years, if not 
> decades.  Judging by the number of HD discs available.

I think it's more like almost every film has been recorded in *film* for 
many years. Rescanning the film into HD isn't more difficult than scanning 
it into SD, once you have the equipment.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Well, they just get their 4 year olds to do it. As we all know "My 4 year old
> can work the VCR better than I can" ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LLTsSnGWMI#t=5m0s

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:46:28 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Well, they just get their 4 year olds to do it. As we all know "My 4 year old
>> can work the VCR better than I can" ;-)
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LLTsSnGWMI#t=5m0s

Nice one Darren :)

My last contract was a support one working in SAP Plant Maintenance. The most
demanding thing I had to do was to show someone how to sort a list in Excel,
face to face without crying. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.
>>
>> I think almost every film has been recorded in HD for many years, if 
>> not decades.  Judging by the number of HD discs available.
> 
> I think it's more like almost every film has been recorded in *film* for 
> many years. Rescanning the film into HD isn't more difficult than 
> scanning it into SD, once you have the equipment.

Yeah, but presumably all that will do is show up the graininess of the 
film in greater detail. It's not like they shoot it in 3500mm film, is it?

PS. The "G" key on my keyboard is dying, and it's *really* starting to 
annoy me...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> Yeah, but presumably all that will do is show up the graininess of the 
> film in greater detail. It's not like they shoot it in 3500mm film, is it?
> 

Akin to seeing a movie on a huge projection screen. Some film has 
exceptionally fine grain.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah, but presumably all that will do is show up the graininess of the 
> film in greater detail. It's not like they shoot it in 3500mm film, is it?

Movie theatre film is pretty fine resolution. I think you could easily get 
1920 pixels across the screen. Even the digitally-recorded Star Wars movies 
were something like 1280 or 1024 or so. (Of course, they were tri-color 
pixels, so it's more than a normal megapixel camera would take.)

> PS. The "G" key on my keyboard is dying, and it's *really* starting to 
> annoy me...

Pop the cap and fish out the grunge. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Movie theatre film is pretty fine resolution. I think you could easily 
> get 1920 pixels across the screen. Even the digitally-recorded Star Wars 
> movies were something like 1280 or 1024 or so. (Of course, they were 
> tri-color pixels, so it's more than a normal megapixel camera would take.)

Seriously? I thought it was all recorded in 15mm film...

>> PS. The "G" key on my keyboard is dying, and it's *really* starting to 
>> annoy me...
> 
> Pop the cap and fish out the grunge. :-)

Grunge? Are you kidding me? I've probably worn the metal on the contact 
surface down. ;-)

(I have a laptop that isn't silver any more where my hands rest. And I 
don't even *use* my laptop that much!!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:33:01 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Yep, we just added the full HD lineup to our cable subscription (which
>> actually *dropped* our monthly charges by $20, go figure).
> 
> Geez how much are you guys paying for TV?!?!

$75/month, no premium channels either.  It was $95/month.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
> 
>> FWIW at our local airport they decided to put a plasma screen above each
>> gate which shows the airline logo, departure time, status etc.  And I
>> guess nobody knew about burn-in, because now you can see "Lufthansa"
>> permanently burnt into the screen no matter what it is displaying.  I
>> see now they show some animated clips or just turn off the displays when
>> they are not in use.
> 
> Ever been to an arcade hall? I swear, every CRT I see has "Insert £1"
> burned into it! ;-)

Ever heard about that guy whose daughter installed a The Little Mermaid
screensaver, and weeks later he finds a "Copyright (c) Disney" burn-in
while working on a spreadsheet? So much for "screen-saving"!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> In the old days, you'd connect the RF arial to the VCR, and another RF
> lead from the VCR to the TV, and tune the TV to a special channel when
> you want to see the signal from the VCR. (I hope it doesn't clash with
> one of your local channels!)

What the hell, my VCR has that, and it's not "old" o_O

I've never seen a SCART connector in my life. It's an european thing as far
as I know.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I still remember how shocked I was when I found out that normal VGA
> actually allows communication in the reverse direction. ;-)

Yeah well, I remember a just-installed Windows XP showing the "new hardware
found" dialog box again and again on its first boot... One of the devices
was the CRT screen, it actually said brand and model... How the HELL does
it know that, and WHY would it want to know that?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from trailers
> for other BBC programs and services.  These usually come in the form of
> 1-3 short trailers *between* each program, never during a program.

Whoa, I wish TV was like that here.

The History Channel breaks every 10 minutes in the middle of the programs,
sometimes advertising products but mostly advertising other programs in the
same channel. And that's cable TV, paying for it. What the hell?

Post a reply to this message

>> Geez how much are you guys paying for TV?!?!
>
> $75/month, no premium channels either.  It was $95/month.

Oh wow that is a lot, in the UK you pay the standard TV license which is 
about 10 pounds a month, which gives you about 30 channels IIRC, 5-10 of 
them are pretty good the rest pants.  You can subscribe to SkyTV via 
satellite which costs 15 pounds a month, but that's just for the basic 
channels.  If you want all the premium channels and HD it's about 50 pounds 
a month.

I just have a big satellite dish that receives all the free SkyTV channels, 
so no monthly subscription at all, and I get the 5-10 pretty good channels, 
plus 990 crap ones :-)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Ever heard about that guy whose daughter installed a The Little Mermaid
> screensaver, and weeks later he finds a "Copyright (c) Disney" burn-in
> while working on a spreadsheet? So much for "screen-saving"!

Yeah. Most modern "screen savers" don't. (Save your screen, that is.) 
Quite the opposite in some cases...

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I still remember how shocked I was when I found out that normal VGA
>> actually allows communication in the reverse direction. ;-)
> 
> Yeah well, I remember a just-installed Windows XP showing the "new hardware
> found" dialog box again and again on its first boot... One of the devices
> was the CRT screen, it actually said brand and model... How the HELL does
> it know that, and WHY would it want to know that?

It might want to know what screenmodes the monitor supports. (And what 
the "optimal" one is in the case of an LCD.) But make and model? Who cares??

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:19:11 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:

> scott wrote:
>> Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from  
>> trailers
>> for other BBC programs and services.  These usually come in the form of
>> 1-3 short trailers *between* each program, never during a program.
>
> Whoa, I wish TV was like that here.
>
> The History Channel breaks every 10 minutes in the middle of the  
> programs,
> sometimes advertising products but mostly advertising other programs in  
> the
> same channel. And that's cable TV, paying for it. What the hell?

'Ah but if there were no adverts the amount you'd be paying would have to  
increase' Actually come to think about it go and buy a newspaper and count  
how many adverts it contains.

Just for comparision's sake on digital Freeview we get BBC1, 2 all say 3,  
& 4  plus CBBC and CBeebies from 7-7 (alternating slots) as well as BBC  
News 24, BBC Parliament, and a couple of extra slots for special stuff  
like news headlines or sport; not to mention the radio broadcasts.  
Commercial channels are ITV1, 2, 3, 4; Channel 4, Film4, More4; Five,  
FiveUS; Sky3, Sky News; UKTV History; plus a whole heap of others I don't  
bother with and this costs £139.50 per year per household.

Watching imported American shows on the BBC it is interesting to see all  
the scene shifts and dramatic moments where a broadcaster can stuff in a  
set of adverts. More fun on Channel 4 (a commercial channel) who are  
currently showing The Simpsons (in some bizzare loop that can't break past  
15) who can't even do this correctly  - 'But that means; d...' ad break  
'...oh', black, scene change.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> Just for comparision's sake on digital Freeview we get BBC1, 2 all say 3, 
> & 4  plus CBBC and CBeebies from 7-7 (alternating slots) as well as BBC 
> News 24, BBC Parliament, and a couple of extra slots for special stuff 
> like news headlines or sport; not to mention the radio broadcasts. 
> Commercial channels are ITV1, 2, 3, 4; Channel 4, Film4, More4; Five, 
> FiveUS; Sky3, Sky News; UKTV History; plus a whole heap of others I don't 
> bother with and this costs £139.50 per year per household.

Just for further information for non-UK people, all those channels come over 
the air and you just need to stick up an aerial on your roof to receive 
them.  All modern TVs have a digital tuner inside to directly decode the 
signals, older ones may need an additional box.  There is no encryption, if 
you don't pay the 140 quid and get caught you get a big fine.

CableTV is really not very popular in the UK compared to other countries 
like USA and Germany, people who want more channels and premium content 
usually bought SkyTV which is a satellite based service.  From them you can 
get all the channels Phil mentioned for free unencrytped, but the satellite 
also transmits many more channels that you need to pay a monthly 
subscription to receive.  Currently you need to pay about an extra 50 pounds 
a month to receive all the premium content (sports, movies, HD etc).

> Watching imported American shows on the BBC it is interesting to see all 
> the scene shifts and dramatic moments where a broadcaster can stuff in a 
> set of adverts.

Also fun to see hour-long shows only taking up 40 minutes :-)

> More fun on Channel 4 (a commercial channel) who are  currently showing 
> The Simpsons (in some bizzare loop that can't break past  15) who can't 
> even do this correctly  - 'But that means; d...' ad break  '...oh', black, 
> scene change.

On Five US reruns you can usually tell that the original had way more 
adverts, because like you say the weird scene changes where I guess they cut 
out the "welcome back" intro...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> Seriously? I thought it was all recorded in 15mm film...
> 

Actually 35mm film, I think ... At least for those movies still recorded 
to film. Everything's going digital these days.

> 


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Yeah. Most modern "screen savers" don't. (Save your screen, that is.) 
> Quite the opposite in some cases...

The best screen saver you can use is the "Blank Screen with power 
management" option.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> It might want to know what screenmodes the monitor supports. (And what 
> the "optimal" one is in the case of an LCD.) But make and model? Who 
> cares??

I think because it's part of the VESA standard.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> How the HELL does it know that,

I'm told the VGA cable also serves as a serial cable.

> and WHY would it want to know that?

Plug and play.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:17:32 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> Geez how much are you guys paying for TV?!?!
>>
>> $75/month, no premium channels either.  It was $95/month.
> 
> Oh wow that is a lot, in the UK you pay the standard TV license which is
> about 10 pounds a month, which gives you about 30 channels IIRC, 5-10 of
> them are pretty good the rest pants.  You can subscribe to SkyTV via
> satellite which costs 15 pounds a month, but that's just for the basic
> channels.  If you want all the premium channels and HD it's about 50
> pounds a month.
> 
> I just have a big satellite dish that receives all the free SkyTV
> channels, so no monthly subscription at all, and I get the 5-10 pretty
> good channels, plus 990 crap ones :-)

Yeah, we get something like 150 channels currently, but we only watch 
about 6-8 of them consistently.  I would really like it if Comcast would 
give us a "build your own package" option, where you pay per channel and 
select only what you want.  Or maybe the reverse of that, they bill you 
only for the channels you watch programs on.  Kinda like the idea hotels 
have where you can start a movie for 10 minutes or so, and after that 
they bill you for it.

Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.  Now 
that's something I'd back.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:19:11 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> scott wrote:
>> Actually on BBC channels there are no adverts at all, apart from
>> trailers for other BBC programs and services.  These usually come in
>> the form of 1-3 short trailers *between* each program, never during a
>> program.
> 
> Whoa, I wish TV was like that here.
> 
> The History Channel breaks every 10 minutes in the middle of the
> programs, sometimes advertising products but mostly advertising other
> programs in the same channel. And that's cable TV, paying for it. What
> the hell?

That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30 
seconds.  We hardly ever see commercials any more.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30 
> seconds.  We hardly ever see commercials any more.

There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note, one 
"e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after it's 
recorded. Very nice.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30
>> seconds.  We hardly ever see commercials any more.
> 
> There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note,
> one "e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after
> it's recorded. Very nice.

Sounds cool, I've played around with a few tools on Linux that let you 
clip segments out, but not for chopping commercials completely.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.  Now
> that's something I'd back.

Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people seem to 
be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they *could* 
watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.

I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most money, if 
they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I suspect a lot 
of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the adverts.  What they 
need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra to have channels with no 
adverts, but not sure how that might work.  Those sort of systems can make 
more money than having just one product.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip 30 
>> seconds.  We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>
>There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note, one 
>"e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after it's 
>recorded. Very nice.

I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers. 
>> Now that's something I'd back.
> 
> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
> 
> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I
> suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the
> adverts.  What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra
> to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work. 
> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.

Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't 
really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle.  The 
entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their money 
from advertising, generally speaking.

That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.  The industry 
hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some 
attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective = Eureka; 
effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well to prevent 
people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to program my remote 
for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast providing a remote that 
could do that already).  The problem is that until they make it 
impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will skip 
commercials, one way or the other.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:32:22 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:36:26 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>>Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's why we use our DVR and have programmed a button on it to skip
>>> 30 seconds.  We hardly ever see commercials any more.
>>
>>There's a program for Windows Media Center called "Lifextender" (note,
>>one "e") that automatically chops the commercials out of a program after
>>it's recorded. Very nice.
> 
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in
> the UK) to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more
> obtrusive to my mind.

Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to 
realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) - 
the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for 
example.  It tracked camera movement as well, which was really impressive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>>> Now that's something I'd back.
>>
>> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
>> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
>> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>>
>> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
>> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then I
>> suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer the
>> adverts.  What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay extra
>> to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might work.
>> Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one product.

Unless the costs for starting and running it are too high; you'd need two  
concurrent signals because the scheduled would be completely different and  
you'd need extra shows to fill the gaps - take an hour show, remove the  
ads which makes it 45 minutes and afer 24 hours you'd need 8 more  
programmes to fill the slots. If you commision only hour-long programmes  
they won't be shown on the ad-channel or they will be but the two channels  
will drift out of sync. In a couple of months time the ad-free will be  
watching season 4 while the ad-channel will still be on season 2.

> Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
> really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle.  The
> entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their money
> from advertising, generally speaking.
>
> That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.

The model starting breaking down with VCRs. Although the loudest noise was  
about people taping and rewatching shows, i.e. not buying the released  
videos, some noise was made about people being able to fast-forward  
through the adverts

> The industry
> hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
> attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective = Eureka;
> effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well to prevent
> people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to program my remote
> for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast providing a remote that
> could do that already).

I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR manufacturers  
for loss of earnings by including a skip function.

>  The problem is that until they make it
> impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will skip
> commercials, one way or the other.

They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina  
screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can  
have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace it  
with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel" "[screams]  
what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir" "Take it away!  
Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that bottle of Coke?"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.

That and "product placement."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR 
> manufacturers for loss of earnings by including a skip function.

I think TiVo got in trouble for having a button that was "skip to the end of 
this set of commercials" or some such functionality.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> 
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>>
>>>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>>>> Now that's something I'd back.
>>>
>>> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
>>> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
>>> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>>>
>>> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
>>> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then
>>> I suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer
>>> the adverts.  What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay
>>> extra to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might
>>> work. Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one
>>> product.
> 
> Unless the costs for starting and running it are too high; you'd need
> two concurrent signals because the scheduled would be completely
> different and you'd need extra shows to fill the gaps - take an hour
> show, remove the ads which makes it 45 minutes and afer 24 hours you'd
> need 8 more programmes to fill the slots. If you commision only
> hour-long programmes they won't be shown on the ad-channel or they will
> be but the two channels will drift out of sync. In a couple of months
> time the ad-free will be watching season 4 while the ad-channel will
> still be on season 2.

No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air on 
the channel with commercials.  I see that already with programs from the 
BBC that air on BBC America.  We typically lose 15-20 minutes of the show 
(which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather than record 
them on BBCA on my DVR).

>> Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
>> really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle. 
>> The entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their
>> money from advertising, generally speaking.
>>
>> That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.
> 
> The model starting breaking down with VCRs. Although the loudest noise
> was about people taping and rewatching shows, i.e. not buying the
> released videos, some noise was made about people being able to
> fast-forward through the adverts

True, but with DVRs that becomes the whole purpose of FF/skip 
functionality.

>> The industry
>> hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
>> attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective =
>> Eureka; effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well
>> to prevent people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to
>> program my remote for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast
>> providing a remote that could do that already).
> 
> I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR
> manufacturers for loss of earnings by including a skip function.

That may be part of the reason why my Comcast DVR's remote doesn't 
include the functionality by default.

>>  The problem is that until they make it
>> impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will
>> skip commercials, one way or the other.
> 
> They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
> screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
> have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace
> it with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel"
> "[screams] what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir"
> "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that
> bottle of Coke?"

LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt 
be hitting someone with it.

(Cue reference to xkcd cartoon with the poster "River Tam Beats Up 
Everybody")

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed
>> (in the UK) to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more
>> obtrusive to my mind.
> 
> That and "product placement."

Especially the really obvious product placements like were in the last 
season of Eureka.  That was just awful.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to 
>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) - 
>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for 
>example.  It tracked camera movement as well, which was really impressive.
>

Any examples?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
>> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
>
>That and "product placement."

That doesn't bother me too much but then I don't watch a lot of TV or film.
One exception recently has been Boston Legal. I've been getting the DVDs out
from Lovefilm. I wonder what the reactions of Americans are to it. It seems
slightly critical at times.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
>>
> No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air on
> the channel with commercials.  I see that already with programs from the
> BBC that air on BBC America.  We typically lose 15-20 minutes of the show
> (which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather than record
> them on BBCA on my DVR).

You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying  
more.

>> They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
>> screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
>> have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace
>> it with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel"
>> "[screams] what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir"
>> "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that
>> bottle of Coke?"
>
> LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
> be hitting someone with it.

Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi  
buyer she'd be hitting ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:54:41 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> 
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>
>>> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
>>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
>>>
>> No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air
>> on the channel with commercials.  I see that already with programs from
>> the BBC that air on BBC America.  We typically lose 15-20 minutes of
>> the show (which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather
>> than record them on BBCA on my DVR).
> 
> You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying
> more.

Yep.  It would be more convenient for me if I didn't have to search for 
the "full" version of the programme and acquire it, and that convenience 
is worth something to me.

But I also think about the $75/month we pay for cable and the number of 
subscribers that Comcast has - the revenue stream is pretty impressive.  
It would be interesting to see how the subscription fees are used.

Similarly, when you pay for a technician to come out to do something that 
could be done remotely (or left to the consumer - for example, if we get 
a Tivo, we need two cable cards for it.  The cards are essentially PCMCIA 
cards that plug into the Tivo.  They send a technician out to do install 
these.  Why?  I can put two PCMCIA cards into the slots on the 
machine.... - hell, I think my mother could even handle that).

>>> bottle of Pepsi sir" "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer
>>> Glau holding that bottle of Coke?"
>>
>> LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
>> be hitting someone with it.
> 
> Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi
> buyer she'd be hitting ;-)

True. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:51:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
>>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
>>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
>>example.  It tracked camera movement as well, which was really
>>impressive.
>>
>>
> Any examples?

Let me see if I can track it down again....

Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Any examples?
>
>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>
>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>
>

Thanks

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> Any examples?
>>
>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>
>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks

Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message