I heard on an internet radio channel yesterday, that whereas in the past
they were cool about shared accounts with family members, they will be charging for outside of the home users on a given account. Not a full subscription but between3 and four dollars whatever that is in pounds.
There also seem to be high level talks going on between Virgin/o2 and Sky who already offer Netflix as part of their subs. Could we be seeing a mega company giving sat, and online and cable delivered TV soon with mobile
thrown in?
Brian
Fragmentation is the real issue. There’s now half a dozen streaming >platforms, each wanting a subscription. There’s only so many decent >programmes made each year, and with these split across the platforms it’s >getting increasingly difficult to justify subscribing to any of them for
the fees wanted.
Tweed wrote:
Fragmentation is the real issue. There’s now half a dozen streaming >>platforms, each wanting a subscription. There’s only so many decent >>programmes made each year, and with these split across the platforms
it’s getting increasingly difficult to justify subscribing to any of
them for the fees wanted.
Indeed! For this household Freeview already provides more programmes
than we have time to watch, and the PVR rarely sees more than 2%
free.
Chris
Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
I heard on an internet radio channel yesterday, that whereas in the past
they were cool about shared accounts with family members, they will be
charging for outside of the home users on a given account. Not a full
subscription but between3 and four dollars whatever that is in pounds.
There also seem to be high level talks going on between Virgin/o2 and
Sky
who already offer Netflix as part of their subs. Could we be seeing a
mega
company giving sat, and online and cable delivered TV soon with mobile
thrown in?
Brian
Fragmentation is the real issue. There's now half a dozen streaming platforms, each wanting a subscription. There's only so many decent programmes made each year, and with these split across the platforms it's getting increasingly difficult to justify subscribing to any of them for
the fees wanted.
Tweed wrote:
Fragmentation is the real issue. There's now half a dozen streaming >>platforms, each wanting a subscription. There's only so many decent >>programmes made each year, and with these split across the platforms it's >>getting increasingly difficult to justify subscribing to any of them for >>the fees wanted.
Indeed! For this household Freeview already provides more
programmes than we have time to watch, and the PVR rarely sees
more than 2% free.
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
On 07:55 26 Apr 2022, Chris J Dixon said:
Tweed wrote:
Fragmentation is the real issue. There’s now half a dozen streaming >>>platforms, each wanting a subscription. There’s only so many decent >>>programmes made each year, and with these split across the platforms
it’s getting increasingly difficult to justify subscribing to any of
them for the fees wanted.
Indeed! For this household Freeview already provides more programmes
than we have time to watch, and the PVR rarely sees more than 2%
free.
Chris
I am not much of a Freeview viewer as I watch mostly streaming tv.
However Recently I refreshed the Freeview stations to get TalkTV. A lot
of new channels appeared but, from their description or name, not a
single one seemed worth watching.
It was almost wall-to-wall dross. In my opinion, this dross wasn't just a >waste of time but also left you mind numbed and perhaps even "mind bent".
The main five channels are available on streaming apps away from Freeview >although frankly only BBC iplayer is worth watching and that's only when >their heavy-handed "diversity" programming isn't showing.
Bah humbug.
I keep Netflix because it releases a large amount of new content,
although much of it seems sensationalist rubbishy movies aimed at the more >juvenile members of the 18 to 30 year-old market. Netflix also has too
many lifestyle; reality tv; pseudo documentaries and such like. However
it does have the occasional gem.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:32:47 +0100, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07:55 26 Apr 2022, Chris J Dixon said:
Tweed wrote:
Fragmentation is the real issue. There’s now half a dozen streaming
platforms, each wanting a subscription. There’s only so many decent
programmes made each year, and with these split across the platforms
it’s getting increasingly difficult to justify subscribing to any of >>>> them for the fees wanted.
Indeed! For this household Freeview already provides more programmes
than we have time to watch, and the PVR rarely sees more than 2%
free.
Chris
I am not much of a Freeview viewer as I watch mostly streaming tv.
However Recently I refreshed the Freeview stations to get TalkTV. A lot
of new channels appeared but, from their description or name, not a
single one seemed worth watching.
It was almost wall-to-wall dross. In my opinion, this dross wasn't just a
waste of time but also left you mind numbed and perhaps even "mind bent".
The main five channels are available on streaming apps away from Freeview
although frankly only BBC iplayer is worth watching and that's only when
their heavy-handed "diversity" programming isn't showing.
Bah humbug.
I keep Netflix because it releases a large amount of new content,
although much of it seems sensationalist rubbishy movies aimed at the more >> juvenile members of the 18 to 30 year-old market. Netflix also has too
many lifestyle; reality tv; pseudo documentaries and such like. However
it does have the occasional gem.
I agree with you. We occasionally used my son's UK account until fairly recently
as well as our own Dutch account, because there was more films on the UK version
of Netflix than on the Dutch version. Also for some reason in NL, UK subtitles
were missing in the Dutch version. They seem to be the same now and I think the
two versions show the same English language films. We don't watch a lot of Netflix, but it is worth paying for the gems. My wife has poor hearing and is Belgian so she needs the UK subtitles.
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know
what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of the >incidental music.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:35:38 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know
what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of
the incidental music.
Same here, and I know it's not my hearing, because with some movies
or TV dramas I can hear every word, and with others it's almost
impossible. Usually it's the older productions where the dialogue is
clearer, and the recent stuff that's hard to follow. Draw your own
inferences from that.
Sometimes it's actors mumbling, and sometimes it's the dynamic range
of a movie that is is so huge that if I keep the volume low enough so
as not to be deafened by the FX sounds, the dialogue is almost
inaudible, however clearly spoken it might be. I think a lot of films
are still being mixed to keep people awake in cinemas, rather than to entertain them in living rooms.
Rod.
On 19:41 27 Apr 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:35:38 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know
what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of
the incidental music.
Same here, and I know it's not my hearing, because with some movies
or TV dramas I can hear every word, and with others it's almost
impossible. Usually it's the older productions where the dialogue is
clearer, and the recent stuff that's hard to follow. Draw your own
inferences from that.
Sometimes it's actors mumbling, and sometimes it's the dynamic range
of a movie that is is so huge that if I keep the volume low enough so
as not to be deafened by the FX sounds, the dialogue is almost
inaudible, however clearly spoken it might be. I think a lot of films
are still being mixed to keep people awake in cinemas, rather than to
entertain them in living rooms.
Rod.
I enjoy seeing the difference between translations when a foreign
language film is dubbed and also has subtitles. I almost find it
instructive!
On a different note I wish far more foreign films were dubbed into
English, rather than having to rely on subtitles which take your eye away from the action.
On a different note I wish far more foreign films were dubbed
into English, rather than having to rely on subtitles which take
your eye away from the action.
On a different note I wish far more foreign films were dubbed into
English, rather than having to rely on subtitles which take your eye away >from the action.
On Fri 29/04/2022 10:54, Pamela wrote:
On 19:41 27 Apr 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:35:38 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know
what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of
the incidental music.
Same here, and I know it's not my hearing, because with some movies
or TV dramas I can hear every word, and with others it's almost
impossible. Usually it's the older productions where the dialogue is
clearer, and the recent stuff that's hard to follow. Draw your own
inferences from that.
Sometimes it's actors mumbling, and sometimes it's the dynamic range
of a movie that is is so huge that if I keep the volume low enough so
as not to be deafened by the FX sounds, the dialogue is almost
inaudible, however clearly spoken it might be. I think a lot of films
are still being mixed to keep people awake in cinemas, rather than to
entertain them in living rooms.
Rod.
I enjoy seeing the difference between translations when a foreign
language film is dubbed and also has subtitles. I almost find it
instructive!
On a different note I wish far more foreign films were dubbed into
English, rather than having to rely on subtitles which take your eye away
from the action.
Try watching TV in Germany. Not only do they overdub everything that is
not in German, but they also change voice tones. For example a deep and
gruff voice is either the boss or the head baddie - which when you know
the film in English and you know the actor's voice it makes a farce of it. >The strange thing is that some channels will show a film or prog in
English with the original soundtrack in English, and then caption only
parts of it in German.
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:43:55 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
On Fri 29/04/2022 10:54, Pamela wrote:
On 19:41 27 Apr 2022, Roderick Stewart said:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:35:38 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know >>>>> what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of >>>>> the incidental music.
Same here, and I know it's not my hearing, because with some movies
or TV dramas I can hear every word, and with others it's almost
impossible. Usually it's the older productions where the dialogue is
clearer, and the recent stuff that's hard to follow. Draw your own
inferences from that.
Sometimes it's actors mumbling, and sometimes it's the dynamic range
of a movie that is is so huge that if I keep the volume low enough so
as not to be deafened by the FX sounds, the dialogue is almost
inaudible, however clearly spoken it might be. I think a lot of films
are still being mixed to keep people awake in cinemas, rather than to
entertain them in living rooms.
I enjoy seeing the difference between translations when a foreign
language film is dubbed and also has subtitles. I almost find it
instructive!
On a different note I wish far more foreign films were dubbed into
English, rather than having to rely on subtitles which take your eye away >>> from the action.
Try watching TV in Germany. Not only do they overdub everything that is
not in German, but they also change voice tones. For example a deep and
gruff voice is either the boss or the head baddie - which when you know
the film in English and you know the actor's voice it makes a farce of it. >> The strange thing is that some channels will show a film or prog in
English with the original soundtrack in English, and then caption only
parts of it in German.
One of the oddest things I've seen is the recent spate of Welsh BBC
dramas (Hinterland, and the other one whatever it's called) where some
of the scenes are in English and some in Welsh. I have no problem
watching Welsh with English subtitles, Welsh has a lovely sound to it,
but the choice of language for each scene seems completely random, and
I can't help wondering if this is really the way they behave in Wales.
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:54:58 +0100, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On a different note I wish far more foreign films were dubbed into
English, rather than having to rely on subtitles which take your eye away >>from the action.
I hope we can disagree like grownups on this one. I'd far rather hear
the original performance by the original actors, than somebody else
trying to duplicate it in a dubbing theatre, even if I don't
understand the language and have to read subtitles. The emotional
intensity is never the same, sometimes the voices are a poor match for
the original actors, and if the dialogue wasn't available on a
separate track, some of the original FX or background sound can be
missing or clumsily recreated too. If it's really bad it can be like
watching a different film.
Perhaps you were thinking of Hidden, where there is a version which is (almost) entirely in Welsh, and a BBC Four version which is mostly in
English with a few bits of Welsh (with tiny English subtitles). I think
there is some kind of rule that Welsh productions aren't allowed to have
more than a certain percentage of English. They might as well have shown
the Welsh version with English subtitles. I don't mind watching foreign
films with subtitles provided they are done well, (i.e. clearly visible
and synchronised); I suppose they would have to be in-vision rather than optional on an English channel.
On 29/04/2022 20:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:54:58 +0100, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On a different note I wish far more foreign films were dubbed into
English, rather than having to rely on subtitles which take your eye
away
from the action.
I hope we can disagree like grownups on this one. I'd far rather hear
the original performance by the original actors, than somebody else
trying to duplicate it in a dubbing theatre, even if I don't
understand the language and have to read subtitles. The emotional
intensity is never the same, sometimes the voices are a poor match for
the original actors, and if the dialogue wasn't available on a
separate track, some of the original FX or background sound can be
missing or clumsily recreated too. If it's really bad it can be like
watching a different film.
If done properly I find that after a short time, I don't notice that I
am reading the subtitles, depending on how interesting the film is.
Have you tried watching films on YouTube? Some of them, whether English
or some other foreign language have been intended for a Russian
audience, but, rather than having Russian subtitles (optional or
embedded), they have a Russian voiceover; after the speech a Russian
voice comes on with the translation. I wonder why they do it this way.
Have you tried watching films on YouTube? Some of them, whether EnglishPerhaps there is a significant proportion of Russians who can't read? It
or some other foreign language have been intended for a Russian audience, >>but, rather than having Russian subtitles (optional or embedded), they >>have a Russian voiceover; after the speech a Russian voice comes on with >>the translation. I wonder why they do it this way.
is a vast country after all, and there must be some areas where the >population isn't dense enough to justify a school.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:35:38 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know
what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of the >>incidental music.
Same here, and I know it's not my hearing, because with some movies or
TV dramas I can hear every word, and with others it's almost
impossible. Usually it's the older productions where the dialogue is
clearer, and the recent stuff that's hard to follow. Draw your own
inferences from that.
Sometimes it's actors mumbling, and sometimes it's the dynamic range
of a movie that is is so huge that if I keep the volume low enough so
as not to be deafened by the FX sounds, the dialogue is almost
inaudible, however clearly spoken it might be. I think a lot of films
are still being mixed to keep people awake in cinemas, rather than to >entertain them in living rooms.
On 27/04/2022 10:08 am, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:32:47 +0100, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 07:55 26 Apr 2022, Chris J Dixon said:
Tweed wrote:
Fragmentation is the real issue. There’s now half a dozen streaming
platforms, each wanting a subscription. There’s only so many decent
programmes made each year, and with these split across the platforms >>>>> it’s getting increasingly difficult to justify subscribing to any of >>>>> them for the fees wanted.
Indeed! For this household Freeview already provides more programmes
than we have time to watch, and the PVR rarely sees more than 2%
free.
Chris
I am not much of a Freeview viewer as I watch mostly streaming tv.
However Recently I refreshed the Freeview stations to get TalkTV. A lot
of new channels appeared but, from their description or name, not a
single one seemed worth watching.
It was almost wall-to-wall dross. In my opinion, this dross wasn't just a >>> waste of time but also left you mind numbed and perhaps even "mind bent". >>>
The main five channels are available on streaming apps away from Freeview >>> although frankly only BBC iplayer is worth watching and that's only when >>> their heavy-handed "diversity" programming isn't showing.
Bah humbug.
I keep Netflix because it releases a large amount of new content,
although much of it seems sensationalist rubbishy movies aimed at the more >>> juvenile members of the 18 to 30 year-old market. Netflix also has too
many lifestyle; reality tv; pseudo documentaries and such like. However
it does have the occasional gem.
I agree with you. We occasionally used my son's UK account until fairly recently
as well as our own Dutch account, because there was more films on the UK version
of Netflix than on the Dutch version. Also for some reason in NL, UK subtitles
were missing in the Dutch version. They seem to be the same now and I think the
two versions show the same English language films. We don't watch a lot of >> Netflix, but it is worth paying for the gems. My wife has poor hearing and is
Belgian so she needs the UK subtitles.
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know
what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of the >incidental music.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:41:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:35:38 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
We have discovered the value of using subtitles just in order to know
what the actors are mumbling about at a volume of about one-third of the >>> incidental music.
Same here, and I know it's not my hearing, because with some movies or
TV dramas I can hear every word, and with others it's almost
impossible. Usually it's the older productions where the dialogue is
clearer, and the recent stuff that's hard to follow. Draw your own
inferences from that.
Sometimes it's actors mumbling, and sometimes it's the dynamic range
of a movie that is is so huge that if I keep the volume low enough so
as not to be deafened by the FX sounds, the dialogue is almost
inaudible, however clearly spoken it might be. I think a lot of films
are still being mixed to keep people awake in cinemas, rather than to
entertain them in living rooms.
We have major problems understanding the sound with some episodes of HIGNFY.
On 30/04/2022 in message <t4jkbe$atr$1@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John wrote:
Have you tried watching films on YouTube? Some of them, whetherPerhaps there is a significant proportion of Russians who can't read?
English or some other foreign language have been intended for a
Russian audience, but, rather than having Russian subtitles
(optional or embedded), they have a Russian voiceover; after the
speech a Russian voice comes on with the translation. I wonder why
they do it this way.
It is a vast country after all, and there must be some areas where the
population isn't dense enough to justify a school.
That's a downward spiral :-)
On 03/05/2022 10:36, Martin wrote:
We have major problems understanding the sound with some episodes of
HIGNFY.
I've given up on that programme. It's so stale. Hislop pretends to be a
lefty so he can keep working for the BBC, Murton mostly just pulls
faces, the guests are obviously chosen so they fit in with the BBC's
world view, the format is tired, they all seem to be struggling to make
it look as if they're enjoying themselves when they obviously aren't.
We have major problems understanding the sound with some episodes of HIGNFY.
On Tue 03/05/2022 20:29, williamwright wrote:
On 03/05/2022 10:36, Martin wrote:
We have major problems understanding the sound with some episodes of
HIGNFY.
I've given up on that programme. It's so stale. Hislop pretends to be
a lefty so he can keep working for the BBC, Murton mostly just pulls
faces, the guests are obviously chosen so they fit in with the BBC's
world view, the format is tired, they all seem to be struggling to
make it look as if they're enjoying themselves when they obviously
aren't.
Except when Clive Myrie is in the chair!
We have major problems understanding the sound with some episodes of HIGNFY.
I don't and I'm 58, so not a spring chicken. I watch it every week
without issue. Mind you, I'd did wonder what all the fuss was about poor sound quality from the sound from TVs, until I experienced some sets in holiday lets etc. My own Samsung produces excellent sound without the
help of sound bars etc.
In article <t4rmqq$ljl$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> >wrote:
We have major problems understanding the sound with some episodes of
HIGNFY.
I don't and I'm 58, so not a spring chicken. I watch it every week
without issue. Mind you, I'd did wonder what all the fuss was about poor
sound quality from the sound from TVs, until I experienced some sets in
holiday lets etc. My own Samsung produces excellent sound without the
help of sound bars etc.
No difficulty here, either, with being able to hear the speech on HIGNFY.
Or on other programmes. Mind you, we don't watch much of the 'drama' stuff
on TV. When we do it is mainly some of the simpler detective progs.
Except when Clive Myrie is in the chair!
Ah well he's a card he is.
Which suit and value?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:29:35 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,026 |