Debate: Does it annoy you that RTE are only Broadcaster on HD on Saorview?

Sam Russell

STB. wrote: »

Sam I don't disagree with you in terms of it being a cop out.

You must remember though that such changes would have to get past senators and TDs in legislative reform. There was ample opportunity for such change when they brought in New broadcasting legislation 10 years ago. Perhaps FG would be all over something the greens wouldn't. Then again they might remember the flack that that labour minister got when she started commenting on Irish water protestors with their iPhones, so I doubt any of them will have the balls to say you can afford to pay sky etc.

The other thing is An post were in trouble and closing post offices the last time I checked. Aren't they kicked back 15mill for collecting it currently.

I also have my doubts that the bills would come down if everyone was paying espeviallly to the levels quoted above. They'd want the evasion percentage anyway.

So we starve RTE of funds to pay An Post for their inefficiency? Really?

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

So we starve RTE of funds to pay An Post for their inefficiency? Really?

At the end of the day that's the nett effect. Money has to go somewhere.


€49 of your licence fee is used to cover An Post collection charges and the evasion rate. It's not chump change.

Could easily fund the extra costs of transmitting TG4 on Saorsat. Because there are next to none :mad:


We already provide free licences to OAP's and blind people and others.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/extra_social_welfare_benefits/household_benefits_package.html

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

So we starve RTE of funds to pay An Post for their inefficiency? Really?

Again I don't disagree. But both are semi state commercials. Is the Political will there to solve one problem to create another. Same minister over both isn't it ?

TheRiverman

FRIENDO wrote: »

Can anybody answer my question please

Do TV3 get any money from the licence fee paid by the public?

thanks

No.

STB.

TheRiverman wrote: »

No.

Indirectly through broadcast fund.

They shouldn't either. Theyre a bloody commercial entity.

Don't even get me started about how much they were bailed out by the taxpayer in loans they never had to pay back before buying back some of their other own loans at discount !

cameramonkey

TheRiverman wrote: »

No.

They do get subsidized tv programmes from the sound and vision fund which comes from the license fee. So indirectly they do.

Mickey Mike

Should the new TV license fee be used to bring more High Definition channels to Saorview? I for one think it should, its a platform that's stuck and needs a reboot, at least VM1 and TG4 would be the main ones.

Johnboy1951

STB. wrote: »

Sam I don't disagree with you in terms of it being a cop out.

You must remember though that such changes would have to get past senators and TDs in legislative reform. There was ample opportunity for such change when they brought in New broadcasting legislation 10 years ago. Perhaps FG would be all over something the greens wouldn't. Then again they might remember the flack that that labour minister got when she started commenting on Irish water protestors with their iPhones, so I doubt any of them will have the balls to say you can afford to pay sky etc.

The other thing is An post were in trouble and closing post offices the last time I checked. Aren't they kicked back 15mill for collecting it currently.

I also have my doubts that the bills would come down if everyone was paying espeviallly to the levels quoted above. They'd want the evasion percentage anyway.

It could be done in stages I suppose.
Move all licence fee payers to the elec bill without introducing a payment for all electricity connections.

It might have a chance of passing, even though most will know it would be the 'thin edge of the wedge' and a few years afterwards put it on all electricity bills that do not have exemption.

There could be a continuing 'donation' to an post for the profit they lost on their collections.

Sam Russell

That is a reply to a post nearly two years old.

Gerry Wicklow

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is a reply to a post nearly two years old.

I think it's a sign of the times Sam. People are digging up old threads on all sorts of forums just looking for something to talk about.

BTW is anyone else finding Boards very slow to load at times?

Sam Russell

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

I think it's a sign of the times Sam. People are digging up old threads on all sorts of forums just looking for something to talk about.

BTW is anyone else finding Boards very slow to load at times?

Yes, and even not loading at times. It is all these people streaming the likes ogf Netflix, but probably not the RTE Player as it is totally unusable.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is a reply to a post nearly two years old.

Sorry, I only look at new posts and I never checked how old the thread was.

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

BTW is anyone else finding Boards very slow to load at times?

Yes, same here.
It has been very bad at times.

Mickey Mike

I notice Virgin Media One have the ONE hd logo up on their screen when its only fuzzy SD.

Sam Russell

Mickey Mike wrote: »

I notice Virgin Media One have the ONE hd logo up on their screen when its only fuzzy SD.

When the BBC introduced the 407 line TV service, it was described as High Definition - which it was - previously it was only 320 lines.

It is all relative - and in TV3 case - always fuzzy.

JDxtra

Mickey Mike wrote: »

I notice Virgin Media One have the ONE hd logo up on their screen when its only fuzzy SD.

Proper broadcast standards are optional when it comes to Virgin Media (as they were with TV3 before).

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

When the BBC introduced the 407 line TV service, it was described as High Definition - which it was - previously it was only 320 lines.

It is all relative - and in TV3 case - always fuzzy.

I love the story that RTE had a 405 camera pointing at a 625 line TV for a couple of years after the big expensive converter broken.


The French were using an 819 line system back in 1949.
736 visible lines. 80 years ago.

ka2

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I love the story that RTE had a 405 camera pointing at a 625 line TV for a couple of years after the big expensive converter broken.


The French were using an 819 line system back in 1949.
736 visible lines. 80 years ago.

405 you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5JR04peBwQ

Gerry Wicklow

Didn't they do something similar with the moon landing? The dish in Australia had a camera looking at a monitor to convert the signal coming from the moon to NTSC for the yanks or is that an urban legend.

ka2

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

Didn't they do something similar with the moon landing? The dish in Australia had a camera looking at a monitor to convert the signal coming from the moon to NTSC for the yanks or is that an urban legend.

Possibly. The software I used to generate the 405 signal in that video above also supports the video formats used by the Apollo missions. It was 320 lines in low fps (10 I think) so would have had to be converted to 525.

It's crazy what level of details they've gone into with hacktv, even supporting VideoCrypt decoders. Good luck finding hardware to work with some of it!

Mickey Mike

It looks as RTE have dropped the HD logos from the screen (thank God) not much change with broadcasting formats or additional channels. Saorview have been in existence now for almost 12 years with limited services and going forward it looks to stay that way.

dublinman1990

There is a HD test channel on Channel 14 on Saorview that has been up & running again recently. What is the actual story with that recent bit of news. I know that it is being used alongside the HBBtv tests on Saorview Connect for now. Could other broadcasters based here like VM or TG4 have any formal plans to go HD on Saorview in the near future? There must be something going on there for anyone to talk about it when these tests are currently being done behind the scenes.

Glaceon

The test channels on 14 and 51 have been there for years. I think they're just placeholders and not testing anything in particular, with the exception of the recent HbbTV tests.

RoysWorld

These forums are full of anoraks who like to push the idea that 544x576 is as good as analog PAL and so we should be happy with it. https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056093615/why-is-the-old-resolutions-of-1440-x-1080i-and-544-x-576

They forget the most important difference between then and now. TVs now are a lot bigger. In the analog PAL days, a 32" TV was about as big as you could get. That is now sometimes the smallest TV in a range.

544x576 looks absolutely terrible on 40" and larger screens.

TAFKAlawhec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118084258#Comment_118084258

First, "These forums are full of anoraks..." - no sh*t!

Secondly, "544x576 looks absolutely terrible on 40" and larger screens." - again, no sh*t (to some extent)! - a lower resolution video shown on a larger projection will show up the progressive softness more than a HD or UHD video.

But ultimately for many commercial broadcasters the question is wherever broadcasting in sub-D1 SD resolutions puts off too many potential viewers of their channels, and thus less eyes for advertisers, against their balance sheet, and the general answer after all these years still seems to be "not enough to be a major issue" in most cases.

Ironically, it tends to be "anoraks" that kick up the biggest stink about channels broadcasting SD only on certain platforms. And after all these years it seems that VM have decided that its viewers whom watch via Saorview are at least content to watching their channels with their current 544x576 resolution, so why pay for broadcasting in HD when it probably won't bring in additional advertising revenue?*

*The current structure in paying for capacity on the Saorview platform is a factor in this, but the general principle still applies.

RoysWorld

The point you miss is that the anoraks justify that 544x576 is an acceptable resolution because it compares to PAL. TVs are bigger now, so their reasoning is invalid.

TAFKAlawhec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118084730#Comment_118084730

Didn't miss any point - some "anoraks" may justify that view, but opinions on how good/bad it is will be subjective. Not to mention that "anoraks" tend to be more critical of subjective picture quality compared to a general lay viewer whom doesn't tend to get into the nitty gritty of screen resolutions.

In my personal opinion, a 544x576 resolution video on a display at 40 inches or bigger rarely looks great largely due to the near 2:1 pixel aspect ratio when the screen display is 16:9 - but if given a sufficiently high enough bitrate (as the VM channels on Saorview are) they can be somewhat tolerate or acceptable. YMMV. Compare them to a lot of the SD FTA channels on satellite at 28 east and they are easily better quality than most of them (for example, the Now/Clubland channels suffer from horrendously low video bitrates, the bad quality of which is amplified by zooming up old, noisy 4:3 videos into a 16:9 frame - but it does get good BARB ratings in an era where linear music channels are dying off, so there's a fair few people willing to tolerate it).

RoysWorld

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118086047#Comment_118086047

No amount of bitrate is going to improve the resolution of 544x576. You will still have "big pixels" and a blurry image.

dublinman1990

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118084692#Comment_118084692

The main problem with VM at this point is that outside of their live sports content portfolio; there is a very minimal amount of attention being given from Irish viewers to just sit in their own homes and watch old ITV studios programmes that were either first broadcast live or pre-recorded on UTV/ITV that was made several years ago.

Even though VM were the main dealmakers in making 2rn broadcast all of the blank channels on Saorview with their own decisions to charge what tariffs were appropriate for the platform. They did not make any realistic efforts to make their own Irish content or ITV studios deal much more worthwhile to viewers so they can gain more eyeballs to their stations.

They just adopted a strategy of being cheap for the sake of being cheap while not wasting too much money on content while looking after their own business interests. And the consequences of looking after that strategy really shows with the stuff they put out today when they try & showcase the output of their own TV channels to the Irish public.

Gerry Wicklow

Re VMs terrible bitrate and Saorview viewers accepting it, they don't have much choice. To many, satellite = Sky = pay to view. Freesat or FTA is not that commonly known among the general public in my experience. How often have we seen on here, people who go out and spend €2000 on a TV and just expect it to work out of the box with little or no concept of aerials, dishes, etc.

Mickey Mike

We probably know at this stage VM won't develop any further as a terrestrial output, unless of course its been sold off to whatever buyer. I would nearly rather see the dam thing close down. It will be back to the drawing board and set up a once purposed RTE3 HD, even TG4 HD may follow suit. It is the people who pays for these services anyway. These days most people get news info on news apps and other social media. VM will be little loss.