[DVDfever]

BBC HD controller Danielle Nagler justifying why she's dropped the bitrate, which she eventually accepted meant a loss in picture quality. How did she justify it? She didn't. She just said that HD isn't always about sharp lines but can manifest itself in a richer, more filmic picture. Hence, she thinks HD = filmic. Who employed her?!

JV never challenged her on talking crap. She even trotted out how some people apparently find DOGs useful because they can't "navigate" their way round the channels, despite the digibox having all the info you require, and HD looking much better than SD... oh, hang on, perhaps that's why she knackered the picture quality: so she can keep the DOGs(!)

They should get Jon Sopel to present this so he can tear her a new one.

Later on they had some 12-year-old explaining why he does what he does with drama, but it wasn't anything of interest.

[Lakeuk]

Points of View has always been poor, always be a pat of the beeb back programme.

We need a programme like 'Right to Reply' that channel4 had years ago

[DVDfever]

Originally Posted by Lakeuk

Points of View has always been poor, always be a pat of the beeb back programme.

We need a programme like 'Right to Reply' that channel4 had years ago

Unfortunately, they canned that 8.5 years ago as management changed and the person in charge of recommissioning it clearly didn't want the channel to be accountable to anyone.

I was glad I got to do one of those, just 3 weeks before it stopped for good, but I'd love to have done more.

(insert shameless plug here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQv2kh5cgxk)

[nick202]

What really annoyed me today was the interview with the controller of drama, mainly because of the fatuous line of questioning and the mass of contradictions.

JV started off by reeling off a list of dramas, such as 24, Desperate Housewives and The Wire, followed by the inane question "Why can't the BBC do dramas like this?"
Well a) because they're all American shows and b) because they're probably made on a budget about 10 times bigger than the one provided by Auntie.

A couple of questions later, there was a letter from someone incensed that lots of BBC dramas were mimicking US shows! The poor guy couldn't win.

I think Points of View suffers from the same "Ooh this show is edgy and tough, let's have a heated debate" kind of hyperbole that dogs a lot of BBC1's current public service output such as Watchdog. It was so much better when it was just Anne Robinson behind a desk responding to viewers' letters (and by that, I mean both Watchdog and POV).

[Straker]

Originally Posted by DVDfever

Unfortunately, they canned that 8.5 years ago as management changed and the person in charge of recommissioning it clearly didn't want the channel to be accountable to anyone.

And now they have that laughable "TV Show" as some kind of half-arsed replacement when it’s really just a way of plugging C4 shows. 20 minutes of coverage to account for one month’s worth of output.

POV is crap. No-one at the Beeb ever admits the viewers are right and any complaints are just brushed away. Waste of bloody time.

[sn_22]

Originally Posted by nick202

What really annoyed me today was the interview with the controller of drama, mainly because of the fatuous line of questioning and the mass of contradictions.

JV started off by reeling off a list of dramas, such as 24, Desperate Housewives and The Wire, followed by the inane question "Why can't the BBC do dramas like this?"
Well a) because they're all American shows and b) because they're probably made on a budget about 10 times bigger than the one provided by Auntie.

A couple of questions later, there was a letter from someone incensed that lots of BBC dramas were mimicking US shows! The poor guy couldn't win.

I totally agree on that front. He ought to have stood up for himself a bit more and been a bit more frank in his answers. Jeremy Vine is so determined to play devils advocate he winds up supporing two opposite stances in the space of a couple of sentences.

[KJ44]

Originally Posted by DVDfever

BBC HD controller Danielle Nagler justifying why she's dropped the bitrate, which she eventually accepted meant a loss in picture quality. How did she justify it? She didn't. She just said that HD isn't always about sharp lines but can manifest itself in a richer, more filmic picture. Hence, she thinks HD = filmic. Who employed her?!

JV never challenged her on talking crap. She even trotted out how some people apparently find DOGs useful because they can't "navigate" their way round the channels, despite the digibox having all the info you require, and HD looking much better than SD... oh, hang on, perhaps that's why she knackered the picture quality: so she can keep the DOGs(!)

They should get Jon Sopel to present this so he can tear her a new one.

Later on they had some 12-year-old explaining why he does what he does with drama, but it wasn't anything of interest.

I think you're not being even-handed. Bandwidth isn't free, and tweaking more efficient encoders isn't straightforward.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern..._a_respon.html

I hate DOGS, so she hasn't a leg to stand on there IMO, but let's not get carried away with the insults eh?

[JeffG1]

They have a similar programme on the News Channel on a Friday evening, with a Scottish presenter. I'm sorry I don't remember his name, or the time (why doesn't RT publish a schedule for this channel?).

It seems to be much better at holding the 'victim' to account.

Unfortunately, I usually miss it because it isn't in RT.

[DVDfever]

Originally Posted by Straker

And now they have that laughable "TV Show" as some kind of half-arsed replacement when it’s really just a way of plugging C4 shows. 20 minutes of coverage to account for one month’s worth of output.

It's worse than that. While last year it was monthly, this year it's only been on every 2 months, but Krishnan always begins the cover-up at the start of the programme with "This month on the TV Show..."

[DVDfever]

Originally Posted by JeffG1

They have a similar programme on the News Channel on a Friday evening, with a Scottish presenter. I'm sorry I don't remember his name, or the time (why doesn't RT publish a schedule for this channel?).

It seems to be much better at holding the 'victim' to account.

Unfortunately, I usually miss it because it isn't in RT.

I get the schedules on Digiguide but it's only tucked away as an afterthought, ie. it says for 8pm on Fridays: BBC News - "Twenty-four hours a day, the latest national and international stories as they break. Including Newswatch."

It's on at 8.45pm on a Friday, repeated at 7.45am on a Saturday morning. The latest show can be seen each week here: http://bbc.co.uk/newswatch

He's also one of the few people worth following... on Twitter, that is: http://twitter.com/RaymondSnoddy

[DVDfever]

Originally Posted by KJ44

I think you're not being even-handed. Bandwidth isn't free, and tweaking more efficient encoders isn't straightforward.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern..._a_respon.html

Well, she could've mentioned the cost issue. Unfortunately, she decided to talk out of her hat instead. That said, if she had mentioned the cost issue then that would raise questions about whether all programmes would eventually be made in HD, and POV doesn't care about getting questions answered, it's just 15 mins of junk to fulfil a PSB remit.

[Tassium]

The BBC used to stand for the best picture that could possibly be delivered.

Standards are rare, right across society nowadays. The common refrain is "compared to [really appalling thing] we are not too bad"

There is only one direction that things go when you don't have absolute standards, downward.

[DVDfever]

Originally Posted by Tassium

The BBC used to stand for the best picture that could possibly be delivered.

Standards are rare, right across society nowadays. The common refrain is "compared to [really appalling thing] we are not too bad"

There is only one direction that things go when you don't have absolute standards, downward.

And that's the main reason why I don't bother getting any equipment that can pick up their HD broadcasts. What's the point when they've made them look crap by comparison to how they COULD look?

"4-5 times increased picture quality", my best hat!

[Chuckman]

Originally Posted by Lakeuk

Points of View has always been poor, always be a pat of the beeb back programme.

At this juncture I'll just slip in a link to the Not the Nine O' Clock News parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukun8nc5Y8U

Things haven't changed a great deal since then..

[Mikeandhersonq]

Originally Posted by Lakeuk

Points of View has always been poor, always be a pat of the beeb back programme.

We need a programme like 'Right to Reply' that channel4 had years ago

The TV Show? Top Gear meets Street Doctors to talk about TV.

[geoveo]

Originally Posted by DVDfever

JV never challenged her on talking crap. She even trotted out how some people apparently find DOGs useful because they can't "navigate" their way round the channels, despite the digibox having all the info you require, and HD looking much better than SD... oh, hang on, perhaps that's why she knackered the picture quality: so she can keep the DOGs(!)

.

Originally Posted by KJ44

I hate DOGS, so she hasn't a leg to stand on there IMO, but let's not get carried away with the insults eh?

What are "DOGS"? woof woof.

[Agent F]

'Navigating'? Good lord.

Nobody uses a DOG to navigate. These people are completely up their own backsides.

[Straker]

Digital Onscreen Graphics.

"Branding" is more accurate as it’s really just a way to prevent copying and to wave their big digital dicks all over the airwaves. The spurious "it helps viewers find channels" is bullshit worthy of a government minister.

[i4u]

It's amazing anyone can find BBC1 or ITV1 without a dog.

At least she didn't defend the on screen idents by saying viewers liked them and found them useful.

[geoveo]

Originally Posted by Straker

Digital Onscreen Graphics.

"Branding" is more accurate as it’s really just a way to prevent copying and to wave their big digital dicks all over the airwaves. The spurious "it helps viewers find channels" is bullshit worthy of a government minister.

Thanks, I'd never seen them referred to as that.

[DVDfever]

Originally Posted by Straker

Digital Onscreen Graphics.

"Branding" is more accurate as it’s really just a way to prevent copying and to wave their big digital dicks all over the airwaves. The spurious "it helps viewers find channels" is bullshit worthy of a government minister.

aka Digitally-Originated Graphic which I also heard around the time the first time I saw them discussioned on Right to Reply.

However, now I think I much prefer "wave their big digital dicks all over the airwaves" Very Charlie Brookeresque

And on the comment "bullshit worthy of a government minister", I often think of the BBC being as bad as the government - the bigwigs earn far too much money, claim far too much on expenses and waste so much time talking so much utter arse like their comments on DOGs. They're really not on the same planet as the rest of us.

[johnny7]

Originally Posted by i4u

At least she didn't defend the on screen idents by saying viewers liked them and found them useful.

Actually, she did:

"I do have to balance those who find it annoying with those who actually find it very useful in navigating what are a lot of channels on digital platforms" adding with a smile " I could take it off, but I don't think I'm going to"
Head of BBC HD Danielle Nagler speaking on Points of View Broadcast on: BBC One, 4:40pm Sunday 8th November 2009

john

[chrisbartley]

"Branding" is more accurate as it’s really just a way to prevent copying and to wave their big digital dicks all over the airwaves.

And it even falls down on that argument.
e.g sometimes the bbc show some football clips in the news, and when the pictures have been sourced from sky or some such, you can see that they have 'zoom'ed in the picture to try to avoid showing any idents