91Èȱ¬

I can only assume that broadcasters like 91Èȱ¬, ITV and Sky are privvy to some market-research that suggests if you don't ident your channel, you lose viewers. Perhaps you could share it with us?

As most of the people commented in the previous post, this argument simply doesn't make any sense. On digital platforms, we access the channel through the EPG or the Guide. We channel hop using the EPG. At every point, we know what channel we are on. If we don't, a quick press of "Select" will tell us.

People feel like their intelligence is insulted by the response that the DOG is used to identify what channel we are on.

There is no "balance" to be met. The DOG is not needed. Please listen to your audience. We have invested lots of money in the equipment and subscriptions because we want to watch pin-sharp, break-taking detail in High-Definition. Defacing this visual perfection with an over-sized corporate logo is criminal. And the fact there is no logical argument in favour of it is absolutely infuriating.

Are we going to see a repeat of the full opening ceremony for the Olympics?

What with it being shown early afternoon I missed it and had to watch it on Eurosport HD. Then again both seemed to have had annoying commentary so perhaps I'm better off not seeing it again.

As for DOGs they don't annoy me too much but if you gave me an option to turn them on or off, I'd have them switched off straight away.

As for advertising I still think on 91Èȱ¬1 they miss the "Also available in HD" on many ads, Britain from Above missed it as did Bonekickers (no loss there). I have DigiGuide installed on my PC at home so most of the time I end up having to double check on there to make sure if it's available or not.

Hi Danielle,

Thanks for coming back to us.

Firstly I am suprised to hear your comment about the opening ceremony of the Olympics, was this your first experience of viewing HD ? I would have thought that you would have at least looked at the 91Èȱ¬ output before ( personally I would have had a good look at the `opposition` too.

With regard to F1 in Hd I can remember when it was first made public that F1 was leaving ITV for 91Èȱ¬ and Bernie Ecclestone was shown in an interview with the 91Èȱ¬ saying that the 91Èȱ¬ had the rights to show F1 in all its formats. Surely this would cover HD ?

Finally....but not least.....bin the DOG !

All the best

Kevin.

"I am not yet sure what I think on where the balance should lie between identifying the channel, and keeping the screen clear for HD pictures. But I will look at the issue, talk to colleagues, and let you know when I reach a conclusion about what is right for 91Èȱ¬ HD."

How about what is right for the majority of viewers !!

"There was a time when I thought that HD was a bit over-hyped, but having seen the spectacle and the colour, and the sheer perfection of the Chinese staging on the channel, and having compared it to the SD 91Èȱ¬ One broadcast, I understand what others have been talking about."

I find this comment a bit worrying, in fact more than a bit !!!

Thanks for responding.

I hope you have access to the Olympics Opening programme on 91Èȱ¬ HD with the 5.1 sound working, rather than the problematical live broadcate that dropped to 2.0. As I said in the previous blog I chose to stay with Eurosport HD to get the 5.1, Yes there were some sound dropouts, but what happened to the 91Èȱ¬ HD sound team. It is a great shame you failed to overcome the problems. Please ask your technical team to tell us what went wrong (as they did for the Euro song contest).

Thanks for the HD Olympic coverage.

As with most Blogs, its the things that grate that generate the comments. I am proud of the 91Èȱ¬ HD channel. [but no DOGS, higher bandwidth and do not forget the value of 5.1 DD sound]

Glad to see that Danielle Nagler says she is looking at some of the post and is providing a reply in some cases (Nothing about why no HD subtitles for us deaf people yet)
But bit worried by the reply regarding the unwanted 'Logo/dogs' ''what is right for 91Èȱ¬ HD'', is surely to provide what the viewers want. There is a masive rejection of them on this Forum/Blog. And anyway, thought the 91Èȱ¬ could not use 'advertising' because thats what the blasted things are and serve no other purpose!

I am sorry to hear that the 91Èȱ¬ HD is so underfunded that it cannot fulfill the the number of hours promised. The cost of post production does not apply to live events such as football matches and to films. Waiting till next April seems along time. It's a good job we have Sky who have promised 30 HD channels by the end of this year. I think that the 91Èȱ¬ should not treat HD as a separate channel but should have a goal to produce all output in HD by 2010 say.

As for the Dog the viewers have spoken.

I guess one reason for the DOG is so that when people record clips from the channel and stick them on YouTube (or similar) the channel the originate from gets publicity. Ideally though I prefer them to be as transparent as possible, preferably 100% transparent (ie. invisible).

If it's a YouTube \ piracy issue, then shouldn't 91Èȱ¬1 and 91Èȱ¬2 carry the logos as well?

Dogs can be removed with a simple video filter. May be box manufacturers should build them in to receivers.

My feeling is that the IDs should go as they just distract from the lovely HD picture.

As for dolby digital sound, why on earth were the Olympics opening ceremony and Andrew Marr's new series only broadcast in stereo?

That spoilt the whole experience for me!

Why the need for a DOG at all?

It is distracting (no matter what size or level of "transparency").
It obscures part of the picture.
In some programmes, important parts of the picture are often obscured (an actors head, part of a sign, etc)

I have spent £1000's of pounds on a HD TV and Sound system. Believe me I know EXACTLY what I am watching at any time!

On some channels, a large/loud DOG has actually resulted in my not watching the channel anymore. You try watching 91Èȱ¬3 on a 50" plasma with that neon pink logo screaming at you...

DOGs are unneccessary and serve only to annoy the audience. Please just get rid of them.

I have to agree with the above post. I have a 50" plasma screen and am unable to watch 91Èȱ¬3 for fear of screen burn.
I know exactly which channel I'm watching.
Please stop treating you audience like children.
The 91Èȱ¬ should set the standard (as they always have in the past), not follow the pack.
Remove the dogs from HD and all your channels.

I don't watch 91Èȱ¬3, 91Èȱ¬4, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, Fiver, FiveUS or any other channel that features a large or brightly coloured logo.

Not because I'm worried about screen-burn but just because they annoy the hell out of me.

I can just about tolerate Five itself if it's a programme I really want to watch.
I watch 91Èȱ¬ HD because I care about picture quality but I find my gaze constantly averted by these logos particularly, as previous correspondents have pointed out,
when there is a switch from a bright scene to a dark scene in a broadcast.

I would love to know how actors, directors, producers and technicians feel when they see themselves or a scene they've shot disfigured by a logo in the middle of someone's forehead !

It's time to kill off the DOGS !

I would still like to know in detail why RGB is disabled on the Scart output on HD freesat.

Thanks for answering the questions on the 9hr service and giving such a definite answer, much appreciated :-). The olympic picture quality has been great and the actual programmes viewing spectacles.

In the last few days it has emerged about the licenses ofcom are likely to grant for freeview (starting in Nov 2009 by Ofcom's provisional timetable). The fiddle ofcom thought up was for DVB-T2 and MPEG4 compatible receivers to cram in 3 HD channels onto a mux. Moreover on satellite 91Èȱ¬ HD is DVB-S rather than S2 as many other HD channels are and uses prehistoric codecs compared to some of the other HD channels. What I'm getting at is under Ofcom's plans 91Èȱ¬ HD may need to be 10Mbs on freeview and wondered how on earth this would be achieved? And whether there are plans to update any of the above to resolve this? Or whether it was going to be a 720p service on freeview as ofcom documentation does appear to allow for such services.

Good to hear you are reading our thoughts about DOGS. I see no reason for the 91Èȱ¬ to need to advertise itself during the transmission of high quality programming on 91Èȱ¬ HD. We pay for the 91Èȱ¬, we chose to watch it's content, we should not be bombarded with 91Èȱ¬ advertisements during a program. I just returned from the States, where 91Èȱ¬ America covers the bottom third of the screen with it's logo, and advertises upcoming programming. It is about as bad as I have ever seen. Even my 84 year old father, who seldom pays any attention to such things, commented how bad it was to have the good programming marred by the incessant messages. ... When we pay to go see a film in a cinema, we don't expect to see a logo in the corner of the screen reminding us which Hollywood studio produced it. The quality of the art should speaks for producer, not how size of their logo! I have always been impressed how the 91Èȱ¬'s Channel One and Two have resisted the DOG insanity. PLEASE do the right thing and remove these from 91Èȱ¬ HD ... and lend a voice to have all the 91Èȱ¬ channels DOG FREE!!!
Thanks.

Although this isn't HD related, it is DOG related. I have a Samsung LCD TV and it has been immune to screen burn so far but over the past week watching the Olympics, the Interactive/Red Button "Choose Sport" logo has started to burn itself into the top right corner of my screen. Unfortunately for me the freeview/DTV tuner is built into the display, not a Sky or Cable box where I can press the backup button to make the logo disappear.

My current options are to stop watching the 91Èȱ¬ channels to remedy the burn in, although the logo partially remains, or to watch Olympic events via the red button and burn the Blue-Button Menu logo into the screen.

Can these logos not be semi transparent?

Hi Danielle,

I had to just quickly post this after having watched Pacific Abyss.

If ever there was a programme that would have benefited by being shown in HD more than this I have yet to see it !

I searched every source I know to see if this was going to be shown in HD but found no indication that it will.
If not why not ? if it is then why oh why can`t that information be given to the viewers ?
I should point out that I checked the Radio Times first ( I have now cancelled my R.T. subscription as I am determined to find some source of getting this info - as yet with no joy ).

Please please please this is the sort of series that HD was made for.

Give it to us in HD.

chiefmcbeef: Try pressing the green button - this will remove the red dot on most receivers (on 91Èȱ¬ channels).

Just to add my vote: Kill the DOG!

DavidJRob, thank you for such a simple solution, I wish I had known/tried sooner, the damage is done as I can't remove the image :(

Personally, I'd love to see more of the 91Èȱ¬'s top shows on 91Èȱ¬ HD such as Jonathon Ross, Graham Norton and Top Gear. Eastenders and The Weakest Link would be excellent additions too, even though I don't watch either.

What frustrates me is the lack of promotion for 91Èȱ¬ HD. For example, when a show is aired on 91Èȱ¬ One and 91Èȱ¬ HD at the same time, we're not informed when they introduce it so I have to change channel to find out for myself. Why don't the 91Èȱ¬ push the HD service to attract more viewers? Sky One do an excellent job at introducing shows and saying "Also available in HD on channel number..." really helps.

Still no subtitles on Freesat 91Èȱ¬ HD!
Have been moaning at everyone from Ofcom, freesat, 91Èȱ¬, various blogs but no one comes up with a real reson (one 91Èȱ¬ chaps said it's 'funding' and HD was only experimental at first!!! Great so we all got HD boxes and dishes for a 'trial service'!! He almost finished with think your self lucky there is picture!
Come get it sorted we hearing impaired want subtiles on HD there can be no real reason for this very long wait to fix the problem. We are being discriminated against for our disability!!
There said it will someone now fix it please!!!!

malcolmtvhd: That must be a receiver problem. I am getting subtitles on 91Èȱ¬ HD on my Humax (non-Freesat) receiver, so the transmission is OK.

Hello David Rob, don't understand that, thought 91Èȱ¬ HD was only available through Freesat? Plus 91Èȱ¬ do admit they have a problem. My Humax Foxstat box up-scales everything to 'near'HD and I can get subtitles on the 'normal' 91Èȱ¬ (plus all others when broadcast) So don't think there is a problem with my receiver. Please explain further?

Hi Malcolm, we are at risk of going 'off topic' for this blog, however 91Èȱ¬ HD is available on Freesat, Sky HD, Virgin cable and (as in my case) on a general purpose free to air receiver. I have no experience of the box you have, however I can say that Humax are notoriously reluctant to fix bugs reported to them by users. There may be something about 91Èȱ¬ HD that your box doesn't like, but whether this constitutes an error on the 91Èȱ¬'s part, I couldn't say. I suggest checking out suitable forums e.g. Digital Spy, AV Forums. Check also that you have the latest software in your box.

Interactive services on ‘freesat’ are using different programming code to other platforms. It's just a question of time before the full text service becomes available.

Hi Danielle,

Firstly thank you for starting this blog. It is rare that viewers would get the chance to air their views in the knowledge that the head of 91Èȱ¬ HD would read them.

I realise alot of people have commented on this issue before me but let me add my voice for the removal of the DOG. It's such a shame that the high quality pictures being broadcast are ruined by its presence.

Film and drama are particularly affected. I am hopeful you will come to the right decision and order the removal of the DOG for good.

Not sure why David Rob feels it's going 'off Topic' to post about lack of subtitles on freesat 91Èȱ¬ HD?

Garrif, you say it's 'just a question of time' before full text services available, well it's been quite a few months now since the launch of freesat HD and it's still unable to provide subtitles for the deaf. Is the problem really that hard to sort out that the might of the 91Èȱ¬ can't fix it?

The point is the freesat service, boxes, dishes etc has been sold claiming that certain things were there (including subtitles) and there not.

Finally, I see that despite many posts asking for the dog/logo to go and not one asking for it to stay and the 'Boss' saying 'she will think about ' it is still there, how long does it take to make an obvious decision?

After spending a fair amount on my hd system I am watching "The Tudors" on
91Èȱ¬ 2 and have my series link set to that because of the DOGS on hd!!!
That must say something about me I suppose- - -either I am stupid to bother with hd or I like to actually view the acting in the screenplay!

I shudder when I read the following:-

"I'm writing this having just watched the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. There was a time when I thought that HD was a bit over-hyped, but having seen the spectacle and the colour, and the sheer perfection of the Chinese staging on the channel, and having compared it to the SD 91Èȱ¬ One broadcast, I understand what others have been talking about.

It was quite literally breathtaking, and happening in my living room."

I hope that you now understand what an important piece of engineering you are in charge of and what an important role it has for British broadcasting. I sincerely hope that you can now go forward and Champion the cause of HD within the 91Èȱ¬.

Every digital system whether cable, terrestrial or satellite has a now and next and EPG system which shows you what channel you are watching. There is simply no need for a DOG to be on screen at all and certainly not in the opacity / size that 91Èȱ¬ HD is.

Why is it the UK and European channels place their DOGs at the top of the screen wherease (in my own opinion), the US channels place their DOGs at the bottom right of the screen - somewhere I find far less obtrusive when watching and may work for 91Èȱ¬ HD if they feel they have to keep a DOG on screen.

On another note, perhaps the 91Èȱ¬ would benefit from displaying Test Card W in its down hours instead of endless repeating of the preview of 91Èȱ¬ HD. Sky's alignment HD testcard has been very succesful and Euro 1080 have also done something similar. 91Èȱ¬ HD could close down from 1am - 6pm with Test Card W to allow engineers and individuals to correctly set their TVs for HD and then start the HD Preview at 6pm for an hour?

Just like to add my voice to the anti DOG lobby

Whilst watching dramas 'suspension of disbelief' is vital (at least to me) - I want to be immersed in the drama, and forget that it's a TV program. And I find that impossible to do with a logo (however small and translucent it may be) stuck permanently on the screen.

I find them so distracting that I never watch any drama on any channel with a logo - I cancelled a Sky subscription for this reason, and I watch dramas on 91Èȱ¬1/2 rather than 91Èȱ¬ HD for this reason.

I still watch 91Èȱ¬ HD for documentaries and the like, but even here the DOG is a distinct annoyance.

Please please get rid of the DOG ASAP so I can use me shiny new Plasma TV for more high def content!

Hi Danielle, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to the comments here.

I do hope you will seriously consider removing the DOG from all 91Èȱ¬ HD programmes.
Promotion of the channel is important but there should be more than enough time during the day and in between progs to do this properly.
I've now spent a lot of money on HD equipment and as a 91Èȱ¬ fan I'm quite sad that the only source of "clean" HD pictures is via Sky Movies and Arts.
I do still occasionally watch some programmes on 91Èȱ¬ HD but the experience is like riding a rollercoaster. Im alternately blown away by the picture quality while the DOG is masked in brighter scenes, then brought down to earth with a bump when it ruins darker ones.

Please do the right thing for HD viewers.

Regards, John.

DOGs are evil, and ruin the viewing experience. Many channels I simply don't watch because of DOGs, and the recurring "Press Red nonsense" that only disappear for 10 minutes by pressing backup. (Sky One, take note..)

As for HD, I am REALLY hoping 91Èȱ¬ show nexts years F1 season, whenever possible in HD. ITV have been doing a pretty decent job over the last 10 or so years, and I feel 91Èȱ¬ need to move to HD to make it really seem like a step forward for F1 Motorsport fans.

Some comments about 91Èȱ¬ HD first - I've heard that when comparing the 91Èȱ¬ HD feed of the Olympics to the Eurosport feed, the Eurosport feed far surpassed the 91Èȱ¬ HD feed in terms of PQ and SQ. This worries me; although I watched the opening ceremony on a friend's TV on SkyHD, it did look alright - but not standout spectacular. I did flick infrequently between Eurosport HD but I wasn't in "analytical" mode - but I've heard more than a handful of people saying similar things. I hope that the PQ of 91Èȱ¬ HD will continue to be improved as the service matures, because having a Public Service Broadcaster whose flagship HD broadcast is bested by a commercial FTA sports channel is embarrassing to say the least.


On to the DOGs now... I find it very interesting that, once again, this discussion has gravitated towards DOGs - it's something I feel strongly about myself. (cue massive coment on DOGs)


Contrary to what some in the industry may argue, particularly at broadcasters, DOGs are becoming increasingly unnecessary in this multi-channel day and age. People tune to the 91Èȱ¬ channels because they want to - and it's hard to mistake a 91Èȱ¬ channel for a.n.other commercial station (for starters, there's no ads! - and then, simply bringing up the search and scan banner will quite clearly indicate which channel you're on).

DOGs should be minimised as much as possible, or ideally be rid of entirely. They do nothing to further my viewing experience, they do not increase brand loyalty nor do they promote the brand. The new 91Èȱ¬ Three logo encodes horribly and displays horribly on some boxes due to the shocking pink used (some chipsets don't do well and you get horrible blocking around the edges of the letters) - and to have a DOG on 91Èȱ¬ HD is totally unnecessary altogether.



In the interim, while the DOGs are kept, for once the 91Èȱ¬ should follow Sky's idea - they've moved their DOGs for Sky1, Sky2 and Sky3 right to the top-left corner of the screen, making clear their intention to drop the facade that people still watch the channels in 4:3 mode. I applauded (and thanked) them for their choice, and the 91Èȱ¬ should do the same.

Going further, the iPlayer video content should be deDOGged altogether - I seriously doubt that anybody would seriously sit there and screenscrape the Flash Video file (or download it, it is possible although very tricky) just to reupload it to a public video sharing site! The quality would be abysmal and the picture almost unwatchable.

There's also little danger of similar happening to DRMed WMV files, because if you tried to upload them to most sites they would go "WMV isn't supported" - and YouTube wouldn't have the licence to decode the DRMed video anyway! The 91Èȱ¬ dog is unnecessary, it decreases the efficiency of the codec and wastes valuable bits. I could have higher quality video but instead I have to put up with a blocky, poorly encoded 91Èȱ¬ logo right up in the top left corner of my screen on all my iPlayer videos. Why?


The DOG is a leftover from the halcyon days of 1990s satellite broadcasting - the 91Èȱ¬ haven't DOGged 91Èȱ¬1 and 91Èȱ¬2 because they know there'd be uproar. 91Èȱ¬ Three and Four are only DOGged because they're comparatively niche (yet popular) channels, but even so the choice is still an unpopular one.

Having a DOG on screen is verging on insulting in this day and age - almost like treating the viewer with contempt, as if to say, "hey, we don't think you're clever enough to know which channel you're currently watching, never mind the fact that you probably tuned the digibox to this channel yourself and you've probably been watching since you did so... And never mind the fact that at the touch of a button you could see which channel it is on your digibox, and then you could close the box and return to unfettered viewing".


DOGs across the 91Èȱ¬ should be put to sleep for good. The only exception to this is 91Èȱ¬ News, because it forms part of the screen furniture - but that's it. On the Radio stations you have your occasional idents, but you don't have someone announcing "you are currently listening to Radio 4.... you are currently listening to Radio 4... You are currently listening to Radio 4..." over the top of whatever programme is currently being broadcast - but that, to me, is the equivalent of a DOG on a TV channel. They should be had rid of post haste.

malcolmtvhd (Subtitles): My apologies, on doing some further research you are quite right, it is a 91Èȱ¬ issue. I now notice that on my Humax (non-Sky, non-Freesat) box, most Freesat channels are sending two sets of subtitles. I think one must be for Sky boxes, the other for Freesat. For whatever reason - maybe the Sky version is proprietory - it has been impossible to agree on one standard. And - you guessed it - 91Èȱ¬ HD currently only has the Sky version. So as you said, you need the 91Èȱ¬ to provide the Freesat version.

Hi,
I am a Virgin media customer and I have a problem with there being no subtitles on 91Èȱ¬ HD. The Picture quality is fine, but as my wife is deaf. This makes it usless for us to watch. When I have contacted VM they have said that they don't have the subtitle feed from the 91Èȱ¬ in a form they can use.
Is this going to change in the future?

I would like to add my contribution to those complaining against DOGS, and urging F1 in HD.

DOGS are immensely irritating. It is amazing that anyone at the 91Èȱ¬ (or elsewhere) should believe that viewers need tem to kn ow what chanel they are watching. In my view, they are do no more than flatter corporate egos, at the expense of their customers. They should be banned completely.

The 91Èȱ¬ apparently sees no reason for such a device on 91Èȱ¬1 - why then is it apparently required for other channels?

As to F1, if coverage is originated in HD for any particular race, surely there can be reason not to allow us to see it in the far more vivd and detailed way that HD allows? Please make sure that this can happen from next year.

Why not scrap the semi-transparent DOG on 91Èȱ¬ HD and replace it with the familiar prominent 'Press Red' pop-up, re-labelled to read '91Èȱ¬ HD'? Discerning viewers could then remove it in the usual way by pressing the green button. This would satisfy the conflicting needs of both broadcaster and viewer.

Every digital system whether cable, terrestrial or satellite has a now and next and EPG system which shows you what channel you are watching. There is simply no need for a DOG to be on screen at all and certainly not in the opacity / size that 91Èȱ¬ HD is.