Royal Wedding in HD??

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › Royal Wedding in HD??

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

wilt64

228 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 464377 2-May-2011 09:18
freeviewfan: tv1 is alway much more hq then tv3 better broadcasting device You have to be joking right!! TVNZ are WAY behind the ball, TV3 HD content would be miles ahead and always has been, when Freeview HD first started TV3 had a feast of HD programmes and TVNZ had nothing!! Also TV3 is in DD5.1 where TVNZ is AAC 2 channel stereo. my 2c

hdinsider

427 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 464421 2-May-2011 11:23
wmoore: hdinsider: wmoore: hdinsider: hdinsider: The biggest problem with showing this in HD would be the linking costs. HD costs approximately four times what SD costs to get here. There is nowhere further in the world than NZ from the wedding... Good news though, the SD pictures should look really good. Much of it will be shot in HD and as the main wedding broadcast is a pool feed, the broadcasters will have mostly the same footage. I'm looking forward to comparing the technical quality of TV1 and TV3 on the night. I was wrong on this, there is no "pool" coverage. Both ITV and BBC have separate trucks covering the whole thing, (although they're sharing a few cameras). All being shot in HD and should look amazing. ITV have 47 main cameras on it! But the actual wedding service inside the abbey, is being produced by the BBC. ' The ceremony inside Westminster Abbey will be covered by NEP Visions, although it will be using 13 special cameras and mounts installed by SIS LIVE. Production inside the Abbey is being produced by the BBC, with feeds available to ITN, which in turn is supplying Sky News, ITV and broadcasters from around the world. ' More about the coverage here The Mirror article is incorrect. ITV have a 16 camera "scanner" (english tech speak for OB truck) at Westminster Abbey and are covering this themselves. So are you saying that ITV are also covering the actual wedding service inside the Abbey with their cameras along side the BBC ? Could you link me to your source please ? My source was a broadcast schedule emailed from an ITV producer who I know. After watching the ceremony, I'm sure that the schedule was wrong as the same cameras were used in the abbey for each. Maybe BBC used the ITV truck for this part. I did see one or two different shots inserted on the BBC feed. don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

lchiu7

3437 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 464453 2-May-2011 12:40
wilt64: freeviewfan: tv1 is alway much more hq then tv3 better broadcasting device You have to be joking right!! TVNZ are WAY behind the ball, TV3 HD content would be miles ahead and always has been, when Freeview HD first started TV3 had a feast of HD programmes and TVNZ had nothing!! Also TV3 is in DD5.1 where TVNZ is AAC 2 channel stereo. my 2c +1 Unless TV3 continues with their policy of cancelling all their HD shows based on ratings with statistical validity issues. System One: Popcorn Hour A200, PS3 (US 60G) dead and now replaced with a PS3 SuperSlim, NPVR running on Sempron 3000 (XP), Sony BDP-S390 BD player, Logitech Revue, Pioneer AVR, JVC 56" D-ILA 720P RP TV System Two: Popcorn Hour A110 , Oppo BDP-80 BluRay Player with hardware mode to be region free, Vivitek HD1080P 1080P DLP projector with 100" screen. Harman Kardon HK AVR 254 7.1 receiver, Toshiba HD-A2 HD-DVD player, Roku XS media player Check out my blog at lchiu.blogspot.com

xarqi

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 464457 2-May-2011 12:52
Which validity issues are those?

Jaxson

4196 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 464467 2-May-2011 13:24
xarqi: Which validity issues are those? The bit where the numbers are bollocks due to the small sample size and no real feedback from TV's/PVR's etc Channels sell advertising space, charging more for high viewer slots. The system is well flawed now but they have to keep it going to justify the pricing. When I did TV studies at Uni we saw the extent the TV companies went to to oppose the findings that people didn't really watch many ads. In the UK for instance there were huge energy spikes that coincided with viewers turning on the jugs for a cup of tea during the ad breaks of Coro St.....

mm1352000

807 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 464473 2-May-2011 13:34
On the one hand we want the broadcasters to use real ratings so that our favourite shows aren't cancelled and the rubbish ones are. If advertisers knew that nobody watched ads they wouldn't be willing to pay so much to the broadcasters, which could lead to reductions in content volume and/or content quality. Seems like we can't win...

wilt64

228 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 464480 2-May-2011 13:52
Jaxson: xarqi: Which validity issues are those? The bit where the numbers are bollocks due to the small sample size and no real feedback from TV's/PVR's etc Channels sell advertising space, charging more for high viewer slots. The system is well flawed now but they have to keep it going to justify the pricing. When I did TV studies at Uni we saw the extent the TV companies went to to oppose the findings that people didn't really watch many ads. In the UK for instance there were huge energy spikes that coincided with viewers turning on the jugs for a cup of tea during the ad breaks of Coro St..... +1 the so called "people meters" just don't work, from memory a 1000 random house holds are picked and have the people meter installed (someone else may want to correct me if I am wrong) this is where the rating statistics are gathered. A more modern “people meter” is “community favourites” part of the PS3 PlayTV this is a real time application showing who is watching what programme (at the moment it is not working due to the PSN being down) the ratings constantly tell us One News is well ahead of 3 News (according to the “people meter”) but on the community favourites 3 News is well ahead of One News every night....yes this could be an age thing where you could argue people using PlayTV may be of the of the younger generation hence favouring TV3 over TV1 personally I would suggest the “community favourites” would be a more accurate source with a big cross section of viewers!!

xarqi

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 464481 2-May-2011 13:53
Jaxson: xarqi: Which validity issues are those? The bit where the numbers are bollocks due to the small sample size and no real feedback from TV's/PVR's etc Channels sell advertising space, charging more for high viewer slots. The system is well flawed now but they have to keep it going to justify the pricing. When I did TV studies at Uni we saw the extent the TV companies went to to oppose the findings that people didn't really watch many ads. In the UK for instance there were huge energy spikes that coincided with viewers turning on the jugs for a cup of tea during the ad breaks of Coro St..... What is the sample size they use? What confidence levels are used? Why would anyone pay money to a research company that could not carry out the simplest sampling experiment? It may be that the wrong questions are being asked, but I'm very confident that the ones that are asked are correctly addressed by the statistics gathered. If broadcast companies make a spurious inference that watching a program implies watching the advertising within it, that does not invalidate the statistics themselves. That said, there is probably a degree of correlation between content watchers and ad watchers. Even if 90% do not suffer the ads, 10% of a greater number is still a greater number.

Jaxson

4196 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 464511 2-May-2011 15:23
xarqi: What is the sample size they use? Stuff all in the grand scheme of things. http://www.agbnielsen.co.nz/tamoverview.aspx It's not just the sample size either. Aspects such as recording and skipping later etc don't factor very well, as well as the demographic that are likely to accept/participate in this form of data gathering as Wilt alludes to above.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4