It takes a lot to get my better half at all
interested in sound.
Last night's Norrie match was one such, however.
If I had to sum up the mix in one word, it would
probably be unprintable.
It's fair to point out that the umpire didn't do
much to control the spectators' rather undignified
yelling, however, the sound mixer has mics in
helpful positions, faders, and, one hopes, also
some discretion.
Neither of the latter two seem to have been used.
There were several points that the umpire ordered
to be replayed for reasons unknown (he was
unintelligible). On other occasions, the
commentators were also unintelligible, because of
the yelling (from separate mics -- they are, after
all probably using 4104s and behind glass).
If I wanted to be deafened by uncouth people, of
course I'd go there in person.
I really don't need an apparently amateur sound
super to imitate the 'being there' discomfort to
the fullest extent possible. I expect if I had 5.1
surround I could make out where each individual
hooligan was sitting, etc. What a great technical
improvement.
I obviously haven't 'got' with the modern age,
where evidently-drunk fools' utterances are more
important than the actual tennis. I'm afraid I
come from a past where one routinely made sure the
important stuff could actually be heard.
Does anybody else remember checking for mono
compatibility, and using 'squawk-boxes' to confirm
how things sounded on tinny speakers? We used to
think it mattered if the bulk of our audience
could hear things clearly.
I know: experienced hands retire, and in the brave
new freelance world, I fear the directors get what
they ask for, without any counter arguments being
put to them. Nobody dares any more.
I am reminded of the mythical 'directors' boxes'
in dubbing - with unused knobs they could twiddle
pointlessly, whilst the mixer got on with the real
job. There must be room for something similar in
those modern trucks with the clever expanding
sides, surely?
The BBC managed to do this well for decades. Now
quite frankly it should be ashamed of itself.
It takes a lot to get my better half at all interested in sound.
Last night's Norrie match was one such, however.
If I had to sum up the mix in one word, it would probably be unprintable.
It's fair to point out that the umpire didn't do much to control the spectators' rather undignified yelling, however, the sound mixer has mics
in helpful positions, faders, and, one hopes, also some discretion.
Neither of the latter two seem to have been used.
There were several points that the umpire ordered to be replayed for
reasons unknown (he was unintelligible). On other occasions, the
commentators were also unintelligible, because of the yelling (from
separate mics -- they are, after all probably using 4104s and behind
glass).
If I wanted to be deafened by uncouth people, of course I'd go there in person.
I really don't need an apparently amateur sound super to imitate the
'being there' discomfort to the fullest extent possible. I expect if I had 5.1 surround I could make out where each individual hooligan was sitting, etc. What a great technical improvement.
I obviously haven't 'got' with the modern age, where evidently-drunk
fools' utterances are more important than the actual tennis. I'm afraid I come from a past where one routinely made sure the important stuff could actually be heard.
Does anybody else remember checking for mono compatibility, and using 'squawk-boxes' to confirm how things sounded on tinny speakers? We used to think it mattered if the bulk of our audience could hear things clearly.
I know: experienced hands retire, and in the brave new freelance world, I fear the directors get what they ask for, without any counter arguments
being put to them. Nobody dares any more.
I am reminded of the mythical 'directors' boxes' in dubbing - with unused knobs they could twiddle pointlessly, whilst the mixer got on with the
real job. There must be room for something similar in those modern trucks with the clever expanding sides, surely?
The BBC managed to do this well for decades. Now quite frankly it should
be ashamed of itself.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 09:17:41 +0100, SimonM
<somewhere@large.in.the.world> wrote:
It takes a lot to get my better half at all
interested in sound.
Last night's Norrie match was one such, however.
If I had to sum up the mix in one word, it would
probably be unprintable.
It's fair to point out that the umpire didn't do
much to control the spectators' rather undignified
yelling, however, the sound mixer has mics in
helpful positions, faders, and, one hopes, also
some discretion.
Neither of the latter two seem to have been used.
There were several points that the umpire ordered
to be replayed for reasons unknown (he was
unintelligible). On other occasions, the
commentators were also unintelligible, because of
the yelling (from separate mics -- they are, after
all probably using 4104s and behind glass).
If I wanted to be deafened by uncouth people, of
course I'd go there in person.
I really don't need an apparently amateur sound
super to imitate the 'being there' discomfort to
the fullest extent possible. I expect if I had 5.1
surround I could make out where each individual
hooligan was sitting, etc. What a great technical
improvement.
I obviously haven't 'got' with the modern age,
where evidently-drunk fools' utterances are more
important than the actual tennis. I'm afraid I
come from a past where one routinely made sure the
important stuff could actually be heard.
Does anybody else remember checking for mono
compatibility, and using 'squawk-boxes' to confirm
how things sounded on tinny speakers? We used to
think it mattered if the bulk of our audience
could hear things clearly.
I know: experienced hands retire, and in the brave
new freelance world, I fear the directors get what
they ask for, without any counter arguments being
put to them. Nobody dares any more.
I am reminded of the mythical 'directors' boxes'
in dubbing - with unused knobs they could twiddle
pointlessly, whilst the mixer got on with the real
job. There must be room for something similar in
those modern trucks with the clever expanding
sides, surely?
The BBC managed to do this well for decades. Now
quite frankly it should be ashamed of itself.
I don't know if this is practical but I have always thought there
should be two soundtracks (using the language option) for a choice
between studio sound and stadium sound. For football they could offer
a choice of Rangers commentary or Celtic commentary.
It takes a lot to get my better half at all
interested in sound.
Last night's Norrie match was one such, however.
If I had to sum up the mix in one word, it would
probably be unprintable.
It's fair to point out that the umpire didn't do
much to control the spectators' rather undignified
yelling, however, the sound mixer has mics in
helpful positions, faders, and, one hopes, also
some discretion.
Neither of the latter two seem to have been used.
There were several points that the umpire ordered
to be replayed for reasons unknown (he was
unintelligible). On other occasions, the
commentators were also unintelligible, because of
the yelling (from separate mics -- they are, after
all probably using 4104s and behind glass).
If I wanted to be deafened by uncouth people, of
course I'd go there in person.
I really don't need an apparently amateur sound
super to imitate the 'being there' discomfort to
the fullest extent possible. I expect if I had 5.1
surround I could make out where each individual
hooligan was sitting, etc. What a great technical
improvement.
I obviously haven't 'got' with the modern age,
where evidently-drunk fools' utterances are more
important than the actual tennis. I'm afraid I
come from a past where one routinely made sure the
important stuff could actually be heard.
Does anybody else remember checking for mono
compatibility, and using 'squawk-boxes' to confirm
how things sounded on tinny speakers? We used to
think it mattered if the bulk of our audience
could hear things clearly.
I know: experienced hands retire, and in the brave
new freelance world, I fear the directors get what
they ask for, without any counter arguments being
put to them. Nobody dares any more.
I am reminded of the mythical 'directors' boxes'
in dubbing - with unused knobs they could twiddle
pointlessly, whilst the mixer got on with the real
job. There must be room for something similar in
those modern trucks with the clever expanding
sides, surely?
The BBC managed to do this well for decades. Now
quite frankly it should be ashamed of itself.
In article <ta3gf6$2ia$1@dont-email.me>,
SimonM <somewhere@large.in.the.world> wrote:
It takes a lot to get my better half at allAs I understod it, OBs have been "contracted out" for many years.
interested in sound.
Last night's Norrie match was one such, however.
If I had to sum up the mix in one word, it would
probably be unprintable.
It's fair to point out that the umpire didn't do
much to control the spectators' rather undignified
yelling, however, the sound mixer has mics in
helpful positions, faders, and, one hopes, also
some discretion.
Neither of the latter two seem to have been used.
There were several points that the umpire ordered
to be replayed for reasons unknown (he was
unintelligible). On other occasions, the
commentators were also unintelligible, because of
the yelling (from separate mics -- they are, after
all probably using 4104s and behind glass).
If I wanted to be deafened by uncouth people, of
course I'd go there in person.
I really don't need an apparently amateur sound
super to imitate the 'being there' discomfort to
the fullest extent possible. I expect if I had 5.1
surround I could make out where each individual
hooligan was sitting, etc. What a great technical
improvement.
I obviously haven't 'got' with the modern age,
where evidently-drunk fools' utterances are more
important than the actual tennis. I'm afraid I
come from a past where one routinely made sure the
important stuff could actually be heard.
Does anybody else remember checking for mono
compatibility, and using 'squawk-boxes' to confirm
how things sounded on tinny speakers? We used to
think it mattered if the bulk of our audience
could hear things clearly.
I know: experienced hands retire, and in the brave
new freelance world, I fear the directors get what
they ask for, without any counter arguments being
put to them. Nobody dares any more.
I am reminded of the mythical 'directors' boxes'
in dubbing - with unused knobs they could twiddle
pointlessly, whilst the mixer got on with the real
job. There must be room for something similar in
those modern trucks with the clever expanding
sides, surely?
The BBC managed to do this well for decades. Now
quite frankly it should be ashamed of itself.
I don't know if this is practical but I have always thought there
should be two soundtracks (using the language option) for a choice
between studio sound and stadium sound. For football they could offer
a choice of Rangers commentary or Celtic commentary.
I did find it annoying on F1 this weekend when the
chaps talking in the studio kept making comments and nobody thought to tell the blind what actually had occurred until much later on.
On 06/07/2022 09:46, Scott wrote:
I don't know if this is practical but I have always thought there
should be two soundtracks (using the language option) for a choice
between studio sound and stadium sound. For football they could offer
a choice of Rangers commentary or Celtic commentary.
That would be wonderful - they might even have a
"partisan/balanced" switch in a telly menu
somewhere (with a submenu to select your team,
obviously), and for Celtic/Rangers a choice of
translation... :-)
I don't know if this is practical but I have always thought there
should be two soundtracks (using the language option) for a choice
between studio sound and stadium sound. For football they could offer
a choice of Rangers commentary or Celtic commentary.
Brian Gaff wrote:
I did find it annoying on F1 this weekend when the
chaps talking in the studio kept making comments and nobody thought to tell >> the blind what actually had occurred until much later on.
They didn't tell the sighted what had occurred either, and certainly
didn't show replays or alternate camera angles for a long time ...
twitter did though.
Andy Burns wrote:
They didn't tell the sighted what had occurred either, and certainly didn't >> show replays or alternate camera angles for a long time ...
Suggests some incompetence, certainly.
What's the PPM?
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 at 14:01:42, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:51:24 +0100, Mary Wolstenholme
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
What's the PPM?
Peak Programme Meter.
A meter standardised by the BBC to enable consistent control of audio >>levels. It was developed in the 1930s to do something that some
apparently still have difficulty with today.
Rod.
Sometimes with two pointers, one with a slower decay than the other; LED >equivalents sometimes (I think virtually always in the case of sound
software that _simulates_ an LED "meter") have a bar for the fast
movement and a dot for the slow.
I think when they have only one pointer, if it's a BBC-type PPM, it's
the slow one, so it shows (prolongs) the peaks, hence the name.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:51:24 +0100, Mary Wolstenholme
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
What's the PPM?
Peak Programme Meter.
A meter standardised by the BBC to enable consistent control of audio
levels. It was developed in the 1930s to do something that some
apparently still have difficulty with today.
Rod.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:51:24 +0100, Mary Wolstenholme
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
What's the PPM?
Peak Programme Meter.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 14:01:42 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:51:24 +0100, Mary WolstenholmeMaybe not quite the same but I remember when tape recorders had
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
What's the PPM?
Peak Programme Meter.
similar meters. It was never clear whether the aim was to keep the
needle out of the red or out of the red most of the time with
occasional peaks in the red area. I was told the latter, on the basis
that the main aim was to keep the sound level subjectively constant.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 14:01:42 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:You're thinking of a VU meter, and its cousins. As Simon says, PPM
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:51:24 +0100, Mary WolstenholmeMaybe not quite the same but I remember when tape recorders had
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
What's the PPM?Peak Programme Meter.
similar meters. It was never clear whether the aim was to keep the
needle out of the red or out of the red most of the time with
occasional peaks in the red area. I was told the latter, on the basis
that the main aim was to keep the sound level subjectively constant.
Sometimes with two pointers, one with a slower
decay than the other; LED equivalents sometimes (I
think virtually always in the case of sound
software that _simulates_ an LED "meter") have a
bar for the fast movement and a dot for the slow.
I think when they have only one pointer, if it's a
BBC-type PPM, it's the slow one, so it shows
(prolongs) the peaks, hence the name.
There is one story I heard, that when CBS hired Studio 1 at The London Studios (nee LWT) for a week's worth of David Letterman's chat show,
they requested to have all the PPM meters on the audio desk replaced
with VUs !
I don't know if this is practical but I have always thought there
should be two soundtracks (using the language option) for a choice
between studio sound and stadium sound. For football they could offer
a choice of Rangers commentary or Celtic commentary.
...The needle also rests on the right (beyond
"7") when not powered as the spring of the moving
coil movement was used to provide the rise time.
On 06/07/2022 15:09, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 14:01:42 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:51:24 +0100, Mary WolstenholmeMaybe not quite the same but I remember when tape recorders had
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
What's the PPM?
Peak Programme Meter.
similar meters. It was never clear whether the aim was to keep the
needle out of the red or out of the red most of the time with
occasional peaks in the red area. I was told the latter, on the basis
that the main aim was to keep the sound level subjectively constant.
There is no 'red' on a PPM's scale anywhere -
almost always white numbering on black (see my
other post).
It's a broadcast meter, not usually found in
domestic kit (High-end Revox a possible exception)
although excellent for recordings too.
The design brief in the 1930s was to make best use
of the roughly 26dB dynamic range available in the
transmission chain. That really hasn't changed.
the chain may have a better s/n ratio, but the
places we listen in don't.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 14:20:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 at 14:01:42, Roderick Stewart >><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 12:51:24 +0100, Mary Wolstenholme
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
What's the PPM?
Peak Programme Meter.
A meter standardised by the BBC to enable consistent control of audio >>>levels. It was developed in the 1930s to do something that some >>>apparently still have difficulty with today.
Rod.
Sometimes with two pointers, one with a slower decay than the other; LED >>equivalents sometimes (I think virtually always in the case of sound >>software that _simulates_ an LED "meter") have a bar for the fast
movement and a dot for the slow.
I think when they have only one pointer, if it's a BBC-type PPM, it's
the slow one, so it shows (prolongs) the peaks, hence the name.
I thought the ones with two pointers were for stereo? I've also seen
side by side pairs of double pointer PPMs, one with red and green
pointers for left and right, and the other with different colours
(white and yellow?) for sum and difference.
Rod.
SimonM <somewhere@large.in.the.world> wrote:
...The needle also rests on the right (beyond
"7") when not powered as the spring of the moving
coil movement was used to provide the rise time.
The rise time was determined partly by the time constant of the charging >circuit for the reservoir capacitor and partly by the inertia of the
moving components (whaich was made as low as possible). The pointer was >mounted flat-ways-on to the operator, so as to minimise its air-braking >effect and prevent it bending if the coil 'kicked'.
The reason for the RH zero was because the original circuit relied on
the square-law characteristics of a particular pentode, which were only >correct if the meter scale zero corresponded to maximum anode current -
a larger signal gave a lower current. This had the added advantage that
in the event of a really huge signal cutting off the valve completely,
the meter never got driven past the mechanical zero, so it was >overload-proof.
To get an accurate square-law characteristic, the valve had to have the
right voltage on the screen grid. This was usually derived from a
supply which was stabilised by a neon tube and had to be adjusted
whenever the valve was changed. Manufacturing tolerances meant that
some valves had to be rejected if they would not line up properly.
Setting up a valve PPM is quite an art, even with the correct signal
sources and the pots working smoothly (which they often don't, now they
are 70 years old); all the adjustments interact.
In article <1puolr4.1m9bjly99h208N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
SimonM <somewhere@large.in.the.world> wrote:
...The needle also rests on the right (beyond
"7") when not powered as the spring of the moving
coil movement was used to provide the rise time.
The rise time was determined partly by the time constant of the charging >>circuit for the reservoir capacitor and partly by the inertia of the
moving components (whaich was made as low as possible). The pointer was >>mounted flat-ways-on to the operator, so as to minimise its air-braking >>effect and prevent it bending if the coil 'kicked'.
The reason for the RH zero was because the original circuit relied on
the square-law characteristics of a particular pentode, which were only >>correct if the meter scale zero corresponded to maximum anode current -
a larger signal gave a lower current. This had the added advantage that
in the event of a really huge signal cutting off the valve completely,
the meter never got driven past the mechanical zero, so it was >>overload-proof.
To get an accurate square-law characteristic, the valve had to have the >>right voltage on the screen grid. This was usually derived from a
supply which was stabilised by a neon tube and had to be adjusted
whenever the valve was changed. Manufacturing tolerances meant that
some valves had to be rejected if they would not line up properly.
Setting up a valve PPM is quite an art, even with the correct signal >>sources and the pots working smoothly (which they often don't, now they
are 70 years old); all the adjustments interact.
Christ! remember doing that many years ago, adjust this twiddle that
mind the interactions and rinse and repeat!.
Was at PYE TvT IIRC...
Yes you get similar issues in horse racing as well. Suddenly you hear
the level reduced as if the mixer only had switches and no pots.
Still a couple of days ago they let Cliff sing again at Wimbledon. A
bit
flat though.
Brian
On 06/07/2022 15:40, Mark Carver wrote:
There is one story I heard, that when CBS hired Studio 1 at The London
Studios (nee LWT) for a week's worth of David Letterman's chat show, they
requested to have all the PPM meters on the audio desk replaced with VUs
!
Did they want them calibrating in feet and inches?
Bill
I remember having an Amstrad deck, and a Tandberg deck. On the Tandberg
which had peak meters you could get a clean nice recording with just a tiny >bit into the read. On the Amstrad Us you had to keep the meters about a
third of the way up to get the same recording levels, and Sony were not a
lot better, but Technics on the other hand were like the Tandberg and worked >best of all, in my view. Surely the best of all metering should be peak hold >ones as we started to see when they using real moving coil meters, just >before my sight went.
Brian
The intention is of course to produce a workable compromise between
adequate level to cover background noise while avoiding
overmodulation, and also presenting credible differences in sound
levels consistent with the type of programme material. All of this is
open to interpretation, but the important thing is that all the characteristics of the meter are standardised, so that suitably
trained operators can make consistent judgements in any BBC control
room equipped with these meters.
If the PPM doesn't appear to be in agreement with your hearing, go for a
long walk, then come back and check again. To your amazement, it will
now agree.
The BBC PPM is effectively peak hold, but with a numerical definition
of what counts as a peak. It's been embodied in British Standards
since the 1930s. I'd have to look it up, but I think it says that a
2ms burst has to read a certain percentage of the actual peak value.
The inertia of a galvanometer pointer would normally reduce the
reading for shorter bursts of sound even if they were the same
amplitude, so the electronics that drives the meter is designed to
store the value long enough for the meter to display it properly.
Bursts of shorter duration would be missed by the meter, but it was established experimentally that they could be curtailed by a fast
acting limiter without audible detriment.
The intention is of course to produce a workable compromise between
adequate level to cover background noise while avoiding
overmodulation, and also presenting credible differences in sound
levels consistent with the type of programme material. All of this is
open to interpretation, but the important thing is that all the characteristics of the meter are standardised, so that suitably
trained operators can make consistent judgements in any BBC control
room equipped with these meters. Regardless of the mechanics of the
actual meters or the details of the electronics driving them, they are
all specified to behave visually in the same way.
I know this tread is about *sound* levels, but I'd like, if I may, to
widen it to exposure of pictures, which is a similar problem of peak[]
levels and avoiding maxing-out and hard-limiting.
I was watching the Djokevic/Norrie tennis match this afternoon (on BBC1
HD, terrestrial) and I was rather horrified at the degree of peak-white >clipping on pictures. Now it was a very sunny day, and by later
how the racks people are setting the exposure. It looks as it if could[]
have done with a good 1/2 to 1 stop of reduced exposure to try to
Does the compression of studio-quality pictures into those which are >broadcast on terrestrial/satellite affect the dynamic range and degree
of highlight/shadow clipping, or does it just affect the degree of >compression artefacts?
As an outsider: are we talking cameras with remote-control irises (or whatever the modern equivalent is)? Unless that is the case, presumably there's nothing the racks people can_do_ if the camera itself is into clipping.
How is "correct" exposure judged in extreme
conditions like this? Do they measure average exposure (either with incident >or reflected light meters) or do have equipment that looks at the histogram >(proportion of pixels in a frame with each brightness value) and adjusts the >exposure to reduce the level at the highlight end to below some acceptable >threshold to expose for the highlights?
On 08/07/2022 23:20, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
As an outsider: are we talking cameras with remote-control irises (or
whatever the modern equivalent is)? Unless that is the case, presumably
there's nothing the racks people can_do_ if the camera itself is into
clipping.
I would not have thought there is a great deal that can be done on a
fast moving live action programme when half the tennis court is in
bright sunshine and the other half in the shade?
I take all my still photographs in RAW mode so I can at least choose to
make the detail in shadows visible but not a lot that be done about the highlights.
I haven't been involved with this for a while, so if they use
something other than a waveform monitor with digital cameras, maybe
someone can enlighten me? A histogram would show the proportions of
the signal at various amplitudes, but no indication of which parts of
the picture they belong to, so in my opinion not the best thing to use
for live television.
People wearing white on a sunny day against a darker background that
may be partially in shade is a severe test of the system, even with
modern cameras. Some cameras have a "soft clipper" circuit that can be adjusted to start reducing gain at some level below 100% signal
voltage, which is a distortion of course because it affects other
piture components than the white objects that are causing the problem,
but it can sometimes give subjectively better results. Full adjustment
of this may or may not be available to the operator, so they may just
have to make the best compromise with what they've got.
The other issue that still affects OBs is zoom
ramping - the change of effective aperture,
usually as the focal length increases* - but I'd
expect there must be a stored lens profile
nowadays that will tweak the iris as the focal
length is changed by the operator. I can't believe
this isn't accommodated in lens or camera firmware
(or both).
Does the compression of studio-quality pictures into those which are broadcast on terrestrial/satellite affect the dynamic range and degree
of highlight/shadow clipping, or does it just affect the degree of compression artefacts?
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:jivlqkFe1s9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/07/2022 22:10, NY wrote:
Does the compression of studio-quality pictures into those which are
broadcast on terrestrial/satellite affect the dynamic range and
degree of highlight/shadow clipping, or does it just affect the
degree of compression artefacts?
No, emission compression has little to no effect on the highlights
handling.
Don't forget Wimbledon is now being racked for HDR, have you taken a
look at the UHD/HDR stream on iplayer (assuming you have a compatible
telly)?
This is exactly the problem HDR helps solve.
The sports pitch being half in bright sunshine, and half in shade, is
nothing new, happens with winter afternoon football every week, it's
something racks engineers have had to deal with for decades.
Ah, of course, HDR is coming. I don't have Sky, only Freesat and
Frreview, so the only UHD I've seen is the test transmissions on
12441V which are impressive resolution: sharper that HD, even when down-scaled to a 1920x1080 computer monitor. I wonder if those use HDR.
On 08/07/2022 22:10, NY wrote:
Does the compression of studio-quality pictures into those which are
broadcast on terrestrial/satellite affect the dynamic range and degree of
highlight/shadow clipping, or does it just affect the degree of
compression artefacts?
No, emission compression has little to no effect on the highlights
handling.
Don't forget Wimbledon is now being racked for HDR, have you taken a look
at the UHD/HDR stream on iplayer (assuming you have a compatible telly)?
This is exactly the problem HDR helps solve.
The sports pitch being half in bright sunshine, and half in shade, is
nothing new, happens with winter afternoon football every week, it's something racks engineers have had to deal with for decades.
If you have a suitable telly, Wimbledon is streaming right now on BBC
iplayer in UHD and HDR.
On 10/07/2022 14:10, Mark Carver wrote:
If you have a suitable telly, Wimbledon is streaming right now on BBC
iplayer in UHD and HDR.
I do have a suitable one and am annoyed I did not see this post when
Mark made it.
How can I find out when the iPlayer is streaming, or replaying,
something else in HD?
Tony
UPDATE. I found a list of repeats such as Blue Planet that are supposed
to be available on HD. I have set my iPlayer Beta to use the highest
quality but I doubt that is what is being sent to my LG tv via my Nvidia Shield.
Any advice folks?
Tony
On 11/07/2022 09:33, Tony Gamble wrote:
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how you folk learn about an
UPDATE. I found a list of repeats such as Blue Planet that are
supposed to be available on HD. I have set my iPlayer Beta to use the
highest quality but I doubt that is what is being sent to my LG tv via
my Nvidia Shield.
Any advice folks?
Tony
event being streamed live in UHD?
Tony
I am still waiting for someone to tell me how you folk learn about an
event being streamed live in UHD?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:20:49 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,598 |