Footage Detectives.

[Brian Gaff]

There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
ratio these days.

However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on Citzen
pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
change the country it worked in.
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
Brian

[alan_m]

Post by Brian Gaff
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
Brian

[quote]
A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
records in colour.

Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
applies to any device you use.
[/quote]

At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
on the satellite box)

[JNugent]

Post by alan_m

   Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as
well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
  Brian

[quote]
A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
records in colour.
Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
applies to any device you use.
[/quote]
At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
on the satellite box)

The original Sky analogue and digital boxes were like that. Just one
output, no recording.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by alan_m

Post by Brian Gaff
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
Brian

[quote]
A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box
that can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording
equipment records in colour.
Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
applies to any device you use.
[/quote]
At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
on the satellite box)

What is the situation if the STB is only used for reception of the
Freeview and Freesat digital radio stations (regardless if whether it
can record)? Things are further complicated as most of them need to be
connected (at least initially) some sort of video display in order to do
a scan to find the stations (which will include all the TV stations).

[SH]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by alan_m

   Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as
well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
  Brian

[quote]
A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box
that can’t record TV programmes. This is because all recording
equipment records in colour.
Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer
or record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
applies to any device you use.
[/quote]
At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as
HDMI on the satellite box)

What is the situation if the STB is only used for reception of the
Freeview and Freesat digital radio stations (regardless if whether it
can record)? Things are further complicated as most of them need to be
connected (at least initially) some sort of video display in order to do
a scan to find the stations (which will include all the TV stations).

I happen to have some Humax boxes that can be made to scan for FTA
radio, and has a channel number on front of the STB.

Only trouble is you need the TV to actually see teh radio station name
unless you (a) can recognise the station aurally and (b) you then can
remember the number for every radio station!

[Brian Gaff]

Netgems box had an analogue modulator as well as scart, but few are around
now, most of the others could just pass uhf through and used scart to view
digital content, that was why the person who wrote in needed the video to
get at the modulator of course, which in my view made it still illegal as
it could record.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by alan_m

Post by Brian Gaff
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
Brian

[quote]
A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
can't record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
records in colour.
Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This
applies to any device you use.
[/quote]
At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that
had no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming
capability. At the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI
on the satellite box)

What is the situation if the STB is only used for reception of the
Freeview and Freesat digital radio stations (regardless if whether it can
record)? Things are further complicated as most of them need to be
connected (at least initially) some sort of video display in order to do
a scan to find the stations (which will include all the TV stations).

I happen to have some Humax boxes that can be made to scan for FTA radio,
and has a channel number on front of the STB.
Only trouble is you need the TV to actually see teh radio station name
unless you (a) can recognise the station aurally and (b) you then can
remember the number for every radio station!

[alan_m]

Post by Brian Gaff
Netgems box had an analogue modulator as well as scart, but few are around
now, most of the others could just pass uhf through and used scart to view
digital content, that was why the person who wrote in needed the video to
get at the modulator of course, which in my view made it still illegal as
it could record.

I once has a STB that couldn't record, had a scart socket for connecting
to a TV and could modulate its own output onto to the UHF coax feed
through. Why does the latter facility make the box illegal for B&W
operation. Isn't your logic the same as saying that any signal coming
out of the aerial down-lead can be connected to a recording device and
therefore the aerial cannot be used for a B&W only TV set-up.

[Max Demian]

Post by SH

Post by Ian Jackson
What is the situation if the STB is only used for reception of the
Freeview and Freesat digital radio stations (regardless if whether it
can record)? Things are further complicated as most of them need to be
connected (at least initially) some sort of video display in order to
do a scan to find the stations (which will include all the TV stations).

I happen to have some Humax boxes that can be made to scan for FTA
radio, and has a channel number on front of the STB.
Only trouble is you need the TV to actually see teh radio station name
unless you (a) can recognise the station aurally and (b) you then can
remember the number for every radio station!

Not too difficult to get a printout of Freeview radio stations. [1] I
did that when I wanted to use a Freeview DVD recorder to feed live radio
to my amplifier.

[1] E.g. https://www.terrestrialtv.uk/

[Brian Gaff]

Exactly my point. The only one being passed around second hand seems to be
the Goodman's Smart talk but it has no modulator.
It also has a serious issue of losing AD randomly, and crashing due to
capacitors drying out. I have two of these and one does this all the time.
Of course those who are up for techy stuff can buy the bits and make up a
module to do this, but all to show blaack and whit on a grotty crt? Really?

I have a teleton, but its only real use is on a tv video magnifier. Even I
cannot see it now!

Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by alan_m

Post by Brian Gaff
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.
Brian

[quote]
A black and white TV Licence is only valid if you use a digital box that
can't record TV programmes. This is because all recording equipment
records in colour.
Even if you have a black and white TV or monitor, a black and white
licence will not cover you to download BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer or
record any live TV. You will need a colour licence for this. This applies
to any device you use.
[/quote]
At one time I had terrestrial and satellite digital set top boxes that had
no recording facility, and no inbuilt Iplayer or streaming capability. At
the time they did have SCART interfaces (as well as HDMI on the satellite
box)
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[JNugent]

Post by Brian Gaff
There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
ratio these days.

This has come up before.

Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
*anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.

It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.

BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
16:9 aspect ratios?

Post by Brian Gaff
However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on Citzen
pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
change the country it worked in.
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.

Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.

[NY]

Post by JNugent

Post by Brian Gaff
There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
ratio these days.

This has come up before.
Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
*anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
aspect ratios?

Post by Brian Gaff
However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on Citzen
pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
change the country it worked in.
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.

Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.

It would be fairer if the licence rules were altered so the display
technology is deciding factor. Unless the licensing authorities think that
people may give recordings to people with colour TVs, then the ability to
record or receive in colour is immaterial if the only display technology is
black and white.

All of this assumes that a B&W licence *should* still be cheaper than a
colour one.

Post by JNugent
BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
aspect ratios?

I think normally it is the TV which is switchable, either manually by a menu
option (or button on the remote) or automatically by the widescreen flag
which is driven by the broadcaster - assuming he doesn't do what the BBC do
and transmit everything in widescreen, thus only using the central pixels
for a 4:3 programme.

I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by Brian Gaff
There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
ratio these days.

This has come up before.
Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
*anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
16:9 aspect ratios?

Post by Brian Gaff
However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on Citzen
pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
change the country it worked in.
   Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as
well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.

Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.

It would be fairer if the licence rules were altered so the display
technology is deciding factor. Unless the licensing authorities think
that people may give recordings to people with colour TVs, then the
ability to record or receive in colour is immaterial if the only display
technology is black and white.
All of this assumes that a B&W licence *should* still be cheaper than a
colour one.

Post by JNugent
BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
16:9 aspect ratios?

I think normally it is the TV which is switchable, either manually by a
menu option (or button on the remote) or automatically by the widescreen
flag which is driven by the broadcaster - assuming he doesn't do what
the BBC do and transmit everything in widescreen, thus only using the
central pixels for a 4:3 programme.

Yes, but not all TV sets with SCART sockets (or able to make sense of an
RF output from a box) had that facility.

Post by NY
I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

It's too long ago for me to remember now!

[NY]

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

It's too long ago for me to remember now!

When I first got a widescreen TV (a CRT rather than LCD/LED) in 2000,
and later got an OnDigital box, there were occasions when I needed to
stretch the picture from 4:3 to 16:9. I looked in all the menus on the
OnD box, and didn't find anything, whereas the TV had a very easy way of
toggling between the two - I think it may have been as simple as an
ASPECT button on the remote.

Altering the video signal so a 4:3 picture was embedded in a 16:9 raster
would seem a fairly processor-intensive operation compared with
(presumably) altering the horizontal scan voltage on a CRT to stretch
4:3 to 16:9. But maybe some set top boxes could so it...

[Mark Carver]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

It's too long ago for me to remember now!

When I first got a widescreen TV (a CRT rather than LCD/LED) in 2000,
and later got an OnDigital box, there were occasions when I needed to
stretch the picture from 4:3 to 16:9. I looked in all the menus on the
OnD box, and didn't find anything, whereas the TV had a very easy way of
toggling between the two - I think it may have been as simple as an
ASPECT button on the remote.
Altering the video signal so a 4:3 picture was embedded in a 16:9 raster
would seem a fairly processor-intensive operation compared with
(presumably) altering the horizontal scan voltage on a CRT to stretch
4:3 to 16:9. But maybe some set top boxes could so it...

It took a couple of years for the OnD boxes to implement AFDs, so until
then the only option was to flag 4:3 or 16:9 in the MPEG header, and
therefore send 4:3 programming as 'full raster' rather than pillar-boxed.

Sky have never supported AFDs, to this day I think, 4:3 on the platform
(and therefore also Freesat) has to be sent as full raster.

[Dave W]

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by NY
I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

It's too long ago for me to remember now!

When I first got a widescreen TV (a CRT rather than LCD/LED) in 2000,
and later got an OnDigital box, there were occasions when I needed to
stretch the picture from 4:3 to 16:9. I looked in all the menus on the
OnD box, and didn't find anything, whereas the TV had a very easy way of
toggling between the two - I think it may have been as simple as an
ASPECT button on the remote.
Altering the video signal so a 4:3 picture was embedded in a 16:9 raster
would seem a fairly processor-intensive operation compared with
(presumably) altering the horizontal scan voltage on a CRT to stretch
4:3 to 16:9. But maybe some set top boxes could so it...

You presume wrongly. The horizontal scan is fixed and the voltage
pulse due to scan current being switched off in the scan coils at the
end of every line is rectified to make the EHT for the final anode.

When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals? Or
did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?

I have a Freesat STB which shows some 4:3 programmes filling the 16:9
screen, and I have to switch the TV to show them at the correct

[NY]

Post by Dave W
When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals? Or
did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?

I know the difference between "stretch 4:3 -> 16:9" and "zoom" which keeps
the same aspect ratio, fills the LHS/RHS and therefore crops top and bottom.

Quite why "zoom" is even offered is a mystery.

[JNugent]

Post by NY

Post by Dave W
When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals? Or
did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?

I know the difference between "stretch 4:3 -> 16:9" and "zoom" which
keeps the same aspect ratio, fills the LHS/RHS and therefore crops top
and bottom.
Quite why "zoom" is even offered is a mystery.

The Bravia set in our living room doesn't offer it (the previous one did).

It has five aspect settings, only two of which are usable, and they are
"Normal" (4:3) and "Full" (16:9).

The others don't make any signal look good and that includes one called
"Subtitles", whose purpose is far from clear.

[alan_m]

Post by NY

Post by Dave W
When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals? Or
did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?

I know the difference between "stretch 4:3 -> 16:9" and "zoom" which
keeps the same aspect ratio, fills the LHS/RHS and therefore crops top
and bottom.
Quite why "zoom" is even offered is a mystery.

for people that don't like the black bars at the top and bottom of the
screen when a film in wide screen cinema format is broadcast ????

[John Armstrong]

Post by alan_m

Post by NY

Post by Dave W
When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals? Or
did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?

I know the difference between "stretch 4:3 -> 16:9" and "zoom" which
keeps the same aspect ratio, fills the LHS/RHS and therefore crops top
and bottom.
Quite why "zoom" is even offered is a mystery.

for people that don't like the black bars at the top and bottom of the
screen when a film in wide screen cinema format is broadcast ????

That's me! Fair enough if it's a film made originally for the cimema.
But, increasingly, a lot of made-for-TV drama is now being made in
aspect ratios of 18 or even 20 to 9, resulting in very wide black
stripes at the top and bottom of the screen.

Why is this done?

[JMB99]

Post by alan_m
for people that don't like the black bars at the top and bottom of the
screen when a film in wide screen cinema format is broadcast ????

Or for the people who have a lot of money for a very wide screen TV or
home cinema?

[Davey]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 05:51:33 +0000

Post by alan_m

Post by NY

Post by Dave W
When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals?
Or did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?

I know the difference between "stretch 4:3 -> 16:9" and "zoom"
which keeps the same aspect ratio, fills the LHS/RHS and therefore
crops top and bottom.
Quite why "zoom" is even offered is a mystery.

for people that don't like the black bars at the top and bottom of
the screen when a film in wide screen cinema format is broadcast ????

Back in my student days, I became a film projectionist. The university's
Union building had two auditoriums, one with a 'normal'
sized screen, and the other with a Cinemascope wide-screen one. One
evening, we were scheduled to show a Cinemascope Western, but some
higher power commandeered the wide screen, and we were forced to show a
Cinemascope film on the much narrower screen. We took two album covers,
(this was in 1969) and put one on each side of the projector's window to
narrow the projected image, and showed the film like that. It was quite
comical watching the rear of hundreds of heads following a posse off to
the side of the screen, and then suddenly stopping as the posse ran
offscreen, but the soundtrack still played the ensuing gunfight.

The pinnacle event at that auditorium was not a film, but a lecture
given by Barnes Wallis. He received a standing ovation.

[the dog from that film you saw]

Post by NY

Post by Dave W
When you stretched a 4:3 picture to 16:9 did circles become ovals? Or
did the picture grow in height, cropping top and bottom?

I know the difference between "stretch 4:3 -> 16:9" and "zoom" which
keeps the same aspect ratio, fills the LHS/RHS and therefore crops top
and bottom.
Quite why "zoom" is even offered is a mystery.

traditionally was used for non anamorphic widescreen material

[Brian Gaff]

On some its buried in technical settings.
On portable tvs though, with these very small SDR radio chips these days,
it would be relatively simple to add digital I'd think. Its because no
market is seen for such a product, that one is not made.

There are many standard converters out there as mentioned in passing on that
series where that bloke repaired old electronics, however they are probably
mainly used in electronic museums and the like.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by NY

Post by JNugent

Post by Brian Gaff
There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
ratio these days.

This has come up before.
Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
*anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
aspect ratios?

Post by Brian Gaff
However, there used to be some B/W LCD devices, one clever one was on Citzen
pocket tvs, and you looked at the reflection of a screen in the mirror
inside the case and viewed it using a lamp behind the set. These were of
course just multi standard analogue receivers, with a hidden switch to
change the country it worked in.
Then there were the bedside radio clock tape and tv devices as well, but
once again, only Analogue. Apparently some people are still only paying B/W
licences, which must mean, somewhere out there, is a b/w set that is
digital. You cannot get around it with a set topbox or video, as both are
capable of colour, even though you cannot display it.

Exactly. The interesting point made during the programme was that the
number of monochrome licences has been falling. Though anything higher
than zero indicates some sort of deception, self or otherwise.

It would be fairer if the licence rules were altered so the display
technology is deciding factor. Unless the licensing authorities think that
people may give recordings to people with colour TVs, then the ability to
record or receive in colour is immaterial if the only display technology
is black and white.
All of this assumes that a B&W licence *should* still be cheaper than a
colour one.

Post by JNugent
BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or 16:9
aspect ratios?

I think normally it is the TV which is switchable, either manually by a
menu option (or button on the remote) or automatically by the widescreen
flag which is driven by the broadcaster - assuming he doesn't do what the
BBC do and transmit everything in widescreen, thus only using the central
pixels for a 4:3 programme.
I don't remember every seeing a widescreen option on my OnDigital box.

[SH]

Post by JNugent

Post by Brian Gaff
There was an item about how many people actually watch in blanck and White
last week. No I don't just mean turn the colour down, but on a black and
whitetv. However they said in order to do this you needed a set top box with
scart, a video with scart and the video to have a modulator. Kind of makes
you wonder why bother, since all output is not even in the right aspect
ratio these days.

This has come up before.
Since the death of 405 and 625 analogue, it's difficult to accept that
*anyone* is technically watching in monochrome.
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.
BTW, didn't set-top boxes (Ondigital onward) have a choice of 4:3 or
16:9 aspect ratios?

ISTR there was a switch from 2k carriers to 8k carriers and all the ITV
digital and the Ondigital boxes could not support 8k carriers?


So it would need later boxes to support 8k carriers

[[e-mail]]

Post by JNugent
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.

I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.
Bill

[alan_m]

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by JNugent
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.

I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.
Bill

The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on to
give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly Come
Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.

I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to do
with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider unviable
(financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon do not fall
into this category.

[JMB99]

Post by alan_m
The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on to
give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly Come
Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to do
with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider unviable
(financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon do not fall
into this category.

Was that Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly of The Sun?

He glossed over that the fact that a whole range of programmes would
just not be made or replaced by very poor 'watered down' versions - you
see this already with many of the documentary type programmes on the
present commercial channels.

He did not mention the regions. Would the Scottish and Welsh
administrations be willing to subsidise their own regional programmes
and what about Gaelic and Welsh programmes - how would they be funded?

[charles]

Post by JMB99

Post by alan_m
The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on to
give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly Come
Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to do
with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider unviable
(financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon do not fall
into this category.

Was that Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly of The Sun?
He glossed over that the fact that a whole range of programmes would
just not be made or replaced by very poor 'watered down' versions - you
see this already with many of the documentary type programmes on the
present commercial channels.
He did not mention the regions. Would the Scottish and Welsh
administrations be willing to subsidise their own regional programmes
and what about Gaelic and Welsh programmes - how would they be funded?

and BBC Radio?

[alan_m]

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

[charles]

Post by alan_m

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

[JMB99]

Post by charles
which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

Or serious programmes. :-)

[Bob Latham]

Post by charles

Post by alan_m

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

I doubt many would deny that the BBC does currently enable a few
desirable things like science programmes and symphony orchestras.

But these are not what the masses watch are they? I would struggle to
find more than a couple of people out of dozens in my life that would
ever watch either.

In previous years over christmas, the BBC usually have a ballet or an
opera. What percentage of people would watch that?

If these programmes are desirable (by the few) them I'm sure a
subscription funding system would be fine. If that system was free of
propaganda and political bias I may subscribe myself.

The idea that the masses and people in real poverty should be forced
to pay (with the threat of court or prison) for the production of
programmes for the elite few is deplorable and shameful.

Bob.

[JMB99]

Post by Bob Latham
But these are not what the masses watch are they? I would struggle to
find more than a couple of people out of dozens in my life that would
ever watch either.

Should we also close all the museums, art galleries, historic sites etc
because these also rely on central funding whether you use them or not?

[JNugent]

Post by JMB99

Post by Bob Latham
But these are not what the masses watch are they? I would struggle to
find more than a couple of people out of dozens in my life that would
ever watch either.

Should we also close all the museums, art galleries, historic sites etc
because these also rely on central funding whether you use them or not?

What is central funding?

Do we have to pay for a Museum Licence irrespective of personal income
or interest in museums?

[alan_m]

Post by JMB99

Post by Bob Latham
But these are not what the masses watch are they? I would struggle to
find more than a couple of people out of dozens in my life that would
ever watch either.

Should we also close all the museums, art galleries, historic sites etc
because these also rely on central funding whether you use them or not?

The amount of money you pay for those may be very close to zero if you
don't earn much. Supporting institutions or art forms that you have no
interest in or for a fixed fee is unjustified.

[JNugent]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by charles

Post by alan_m

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

I doubt many would deny that the BBC does currently enable a few
desirable things like science programmes and symphony orchestras.
But these are not what the masses watch are they? I would struggle to
find more than a couple of people out of dozens in my life that would
ever watch either.
In previous years over christmas, the BBC usually have a ballet or an
opera. What percentage of people would watch that?
If these programmes are desirable (by the few) them I'm sure a
subscription funding system would be fine. If that system was free of
propaganda and political bias I may subscribe myself.
The idea that the masses and people in real poverty should be forced
to pay (with the threat of court or prison) for the production of
programmes for the elite few is deplorable and shameful.

Indeed.

Subsidy for the well-off at the expense of plebs (and I'm not saying
which group I'm in).

[alan_m]

Post by charles

Post by alan_m

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

Shouldn't they be paid for by the people that want to see/hear them?

Just because the BBC has a tradition of paying for certain things it
doesn't mean today we all should be taxed to pay for the same things.

[alan_m]

Post by alan_m

Post by charles

Post by alan_m

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

Shouldn't they be paid for by the people that want to see/hear them?
Just because the BBC has a tradition of paying for certain things it
doesn't mean today we all should be taxed to pay for the same things.

As a Public Service Broadcaster why does the BBC need 5 TV channels?
Are endless celebrity cooking programs, property sales programs, antique
sales/valuation programs, soaps and banal game shows part of a public
service remit? Much of the BBC output isn't quality.

[JNugent]

Post by charles

Post by alan_m

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

Does the BBC run a permanent symphony orchestra?

Isn't it more likely that musicians are simply contracted for rehearsals
and performance for a particular programme?

Classic FM is involved with several orchestras in various regions,
though not to the extent of providing year-round employment.

[charles]

Post by JNugent

Post by charles

Post by alan_m

Post by charles
and BBC Radio?

Ah, we cannot cancel the Archers argument!
I assume commercial radio stations don't exist?

which commercial radio stations run Symphony Orchestras?

Does the BBC run a permanent symphony orchestra?

At least 4. 2 in London, one in Manchester and one in Glasgow.

Post by JNugent
Isn't it more likely that musicians are simply contracted for rehearsals
and performance for a particular programme?

No

Post by JNugent
Classic FM is involved with several orchestras in various regions,
though not to the extent of providing year-round employment.

[alan_m]

Post by JMB99

Post by alan_m
The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on
to give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly
Come Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to
do with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider
unviable (financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon
do not fall into this category.

Was that Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly of The Sun?

Pass, I was busy fighting with a radiator at the time and just had the
radio on.

Post by JMB99
He glossed over that the fact that a whole range of programmes would
just not be made or replaced by very poor 'watered down' versions - you
see this already with many of the documentary type programmes on the
present commercial channels.

I assume you have not been viewing the content of many BBC documentaries
over the past couple of decades. Many are very superficial. The few
flagship documentaries are made in collaboration with, and money
supplied, by foreign commercial channels. You may find that these are
"owned" by the commercial arm of the BBC.

Post by JMB99
He did not mention the regions.  Would the Scottish and Welsh
administrations be willing to subsidise their own regional programmes
and what about Gaelic and Welsh programmes - how would they be funded?

Why should they be funded by the English viewers? Wasn't this what
devolution was all about. Why don't the BBC show main stream programs
in the other languages used in the UK. If HM Gov and local authorities
have to supply translated documents in a dozen different languages why
is the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, not doing the same?

[JMB99]

Post by alan_m
I assume you have not been viewing the content of many BBC documentaries
over the past couple of decades. Many are very superficial.  The few
flagship documentaries are made in collaboration with, and money
supplied, by foreign commercial channels. You may find that these are
"owned" by the commercial arm of the BBC.

The documentaries are still better than most on the commercial channels.

Post by alan_m
Why should they be funded by the English viewers? Wasn't this what
devolution was all about.  Why don't the BBC show main stream programs
in the other languages used in the UK. If HM Gov and local authorities
have to supply translated documents in a dozen different languages why
is the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, not doing the same?

I was making the point that there are complications with the regions.

Wasn't there a move to reduce the number of languages supported on
official leaflets.

[JNugent]

Post by JMB99

Post by alan_m
The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on
to give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly
Come Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to
do with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider
unviable (financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon
do not fall into this category.

Was that Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly of The Sun?
He glossed over that the fact that a whole range of programmes would
just not be made or replaced by very poor 'watered down' versions - you
see this already with many of the documentary type programmes on the
present commercial channels.

After "Politics Live" today, there was some absolutely appalling game
show where people have to run around the set catching falling balloons
(it was so bad, I had to give it two minutes just so that I could take
in how bad it was).

And this wasn't even on BBC1 (ITV chav-lite). It was BBC *Two*!

Post by JMB99
He did not mention the regions.  Would the Scottish and Welsh
administrations be willing to subsidise their own regional programmes
and what about Gaelic and Welsh programmes - how would they be funded?

The money must be available in NI, Wales and Scotland. After all, if you
asked the BBC, they would insist that English residents are not
subsidising the other nations.

[JMB99]

Post by JNugent
The money must be available in NI, Wales and Scotland. After all, if you
asked the BBC, they would insist that English residents are not
subsidising the other nations.

They do not like to admit it but it is obvious that it must be expensive
to fund specialist programmes with a small target audience (only a part
of the Scottish or Welsh population will want to watch them) and smaller
audience for the Scotch or Welsh programmes - all smaller population to
fund them. The nationalists always overlook (deliberately probably)
that they also need programmes from the network and so have to pay for them.

You tend

[JNugent]

Post by alan_m

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by JNugent
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.

I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.
Bill

The other day when the increase in the licence fee was announced I
listened to someone from the BBC trying to defend the tax. Without the
fee public service broadcasting would fail to exist. He then went on to
give examples of what could not be then broadcast such as Strictly Come
Dancing and the coverage of Wimbledon Tennis.
I was under the impression that the public service remit was more to do
with covering areas that "commercial" channels may consider unviable
(financially) to broadcast. I'm sure Strictly and Wimbledon do not fall
into this category.

Absolutely.

At the very worst, the BBC (like Thames TV before it) could become an
independent production company, selling their programmes to other TV
stations and digital providers.

[JMB99]

Post by JNugent
At the very worst, the BBC (like Thames TV before it) could become an
independent production company, selling their programmes to other TV
stations and digital providers.

But there needs to be people willing to pay for those programmes and
there do not seem any of those around in the commercial sector.

Why should they bother when they can get millions of morons to watch I'm
A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.

[JNugent]

Post by JMB99

Post by JNugent
At the very worst, the BBC (like Thames TV before it) could become an
independent production company, selling their programmes to other TV
stations and digital providers.

But there needs to be people willing to pay for those programmes and
there do not seem any of those around in the commercial sector.

In that scenario, they wouldn't get made. But that's not necessarily a
bad thing. There isn't much of a case for charging the vast majority a
compulsory fee in order to pay for the pleasures of a minority (who, it
can reasonably be assumed are better-off than the majority in the first
place).

Post by JMB99
Why should they bother when they can get millions of morons to watch I'm
A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.

Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.

[JMB99]

Post by JNugent
Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.

Many seem designed for the American market though some BBC ones have
gone that way.

[Max Demian]

Post by JMB99

Post by JNugent
Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.

Many seem designed for the American market though some BBC ones have
gone that way.

The "true crime" ones mostly cover UK based crime, which the US won't
(in general) be interested in.

[alan_m]

Post by JMB99

Post by JNugent
Channel 4 and Five are pretty big on documentaries.

Many seem designed for the American market though some BBC ones have
gone that way.

It may seem that way but in reality it's just trying to extend the
content that would fill perhaps 20 minutes of screen time into a one
hour program. It's the 3 minute attention scan syndrome where they have
to endless repeat everything just in case you have forgotten what you
watched in the previous few minutes.

Many of the documentaries on PBS are a lot better than what is produced
in the UK. The main problem with PBS is that they tend to broadcast the
same content each day for perhaps a month before changing to another set
of programs.

[JMB99]

Post by alan_m
It may seem that way but in reality it's just trying to extend the
content that would fill perhaps 20 minutes of screen time into a one
hour program. It's the 3 minute attention scan syndrome where they have
to endless repeat everything just in case you have forgotten what you
watched in the previous few minutes.
Many of the documentaries on PBS are a lot better than what is produced
in the UK.  The main problem with PBS is that they tend to broadcast the
same content each day for perhaps a month before changing to another set
of programs.

The Americans have different standards, I remember someone from BBC
wildlife unit saying the Americans edit programmes for more gory scenes
and even more of animals copulating.

Also BBC2 showed an American programme about the investigation into an
aircraft crash, in a discussion somewhere it was said that they had had
to re-edit the whole programme because the Americans had used lots of
footage of bodies and body parts which the BBC would be very unlikely to
show in any programme.

[Mark Carver]

Post by JMB99

Post by alan_m
It may seem that way but in reality it's just trying to extend the
content that would fill perhaps 20 minutes of screen time into a one
hour program. It's the 3 minute attention scan syndrome where they
have to endless repeat everything just in case you have forgotten what
you watched in the previous few minutes.
Many of the documentaries on PBS are a lot better than what is
produced in the UK.  The main problem with PBS is that they tend to
broadcast the same content each day for perhaps a month before
changing to another set of programs.

The Americans have different standards, I remember someone from BBC
wildlife unit saying the Americans edit programmes for more gory scenes
and even more of animals copulating.
Also BBC2 showed an American programme about the investigation into an
aircraft crash, in a discussion somewhere it was said that they had had
to re-edit the whole programme because the Americans had used lots of
footage of bodies and body parts which the BBC would be very unlikely to
show in any programme.

American Mainstream TV has nothing unsavoury or offensive and everyone
has sex fully clothed. News footage is even more sanitised than ours.
The most unsanitised stuff is to be seen on European and Middle East
channels

Subscription American TV (HBO, AMC, etc) is the other way completely.

[Brian Gaff]

Yes why don't they at least call it a subscription. Surely there are now
enough commercial models out there which have been a success to make it
viable? On free to air stuff they could just carry adverts.
Unless of course BBC started to make minority programs non dumbed down
programs and let the old rubbish be handled by other networks and you could
get a reasonable combined sub so you could get a better selection than now
where umpteen channels all re run the same old crap.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by JNugent
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.

I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.
Bill

[JNugent]

Post by ***@aol.com

Post by JNugent
It's time the B&W licence loophole was abolished.

I guess it will be when the colour one is abolished.

If the government really intended to do that, they could (and arguable
would) have done it already, with an end date for the licencecoincident
with the end of the Beeb's current charter.

It is a great pity that Nadine Dorries is no longer Culture Secretary.

[Bob Latham]

Post by JNugent
It is a great pity that Nadine Dorries is no longer Culture
Secretary.

I understand why you say that but unfortunately with this wet and
useless government it's always talk and promises and no action except
to see how many billions we can waste on pointless projects or give
away to richer counties.

Bob.

[JMB99]

Post by Bob Latham
I understand why you say that but unfortunately with this wet and
useless government it's always talk and promises and no action except
to see how many billions we can waste on pointless projects or give
away to richer counties.

Of course Labour would do not do that! :-) :-) :-)

At least they do not pay ransoms to the HAMAS terrorists like the SNP.

[Brian Gaff]

Well, Politicians are only in the job because they can do well in Bullshit
creation. After all, if you look at this new law on internet privacy and the
like, you can tell they are clueless.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by JMB99

Post by Bob Latham
I understand why you say that but unfortunately with this wet and
useless government it's always talk and promises and no action except
to see how many billions we can waste on pointless projects or give
away to richer counties.

Of course Labour would do not do that! :-) :-) :-)
At least they do not pay ransoms to the HAMAS terrorists like the SNP.