91Èȱ¬ HD TV Update: Jonathan Ross in HD
Post categories: HDTV
| 14:24 UK time, Friday, 5 September 2008
Hi everyone, things are moving fast on 91Èȱ¬ HD and I just wanted to give you an update.
Jonathan Ross has been working in our new HD studio this week, and his first goes out tonight. Do watch to see what impact HD has on the look - and of course on Jonathan and the . Getting the show into HD is a key part of trying to make good our promise that we'll bring you the very best programmes that the 91Èȱ¬ has to offer across our channels in HD. Like him or loathe him, JR is undoubtedly the best in class when it comes to that kind of entertainment.
I hope that you will find other innovations through the autumn in a number of programming areas, and can also tell you that 91Èȱ¬ HD will be on air for longer. We'll be starting our schedule at 7pm on weeknights and earlier at the weekends throughout September and, I hope, further increasing the hours toward the end of the year.
Finally, I've started some work to look at the question of DOGs to help me to make a decision about what we should do on a subject I know many of you feel strongly about. No promises as to the outcome, but I wanted you to know that it's underway.
Danielle Nagler is Head of HDTV, 91Èȱ¬ Vision.
Comment number 1.
At 5th Sep 2008, Trev wrote:Johnathan Ross in HD how can the 91Èȱ¬ justify the cost of the makeup!!!!
As for the DOGS just switch it off and reduce the 91Èȱ¬'s carbon footprint
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 5th Sep 2008, GavinActual wrote:Hearing about any new programs coming to 91Èȱ¬ HD is always a good thing, but I am still sometimes disappointed by the sheer amount of repeats that occur on 91Èȱ¬ HD.
I was looking a few weeks ahead on the 91Èȱ¬ HD schedule and on Tuesday 11th of this month 91Èȱ¬ One is showing American Beauty while 91Èȱ¬ HD is showing a repeats of Lost Land Of The Jaguar, some Jools Holland and a repeat of Bonekickers.
When a film like that is scheduled for 91Èȱ¬ One is the attempt made to get a HD master from the distributor? American Beauty is an amazing film in every regard not least in it's Oscar winning cinematography which would look amazing on 91Èȱ¬ HD. Yet while it shows in SD, 91Èȱ¬ HD viewers are watching repeats. Again.
Surely films such as this are a fantastic way to show off how good your HD channel can be without resorting to hours upon hours of repeats?
Oh and the DOG? The way I see it is this: To watch 91Èȱ¬ HD you need a TV system that will tell you the channel you are watching when you select it. Therefore the DOG is POINTLESS. Get Rid Of It.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 5th Sep 2008, Simon Horlick wrote:Brilliant, Jonathan Ross should look great in HD. I hope the trend continues, maybe some Mock the week or Have I got news too?
As for the DOG - HD is about quality and I'm sure after spending hundreds of pounds on HD equipment nobody wants the picture made worse by an unnecessary logo in the corner of the screen.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 5th Sep 2008, Something Something wrote:Really good to see the channel is starting to expand, and I have to agree with the previous post - Mock the Week and Have I Got News For You would also be near the top of my list for studio-based shows to go HD.
On DOGs, while I'd love to see the back of them, it's great to see that you're taking the subject seriously, something that not all channels seem to do.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 6th Sep 2008, daveac wrote:Thanks for keeping us informed via this blog.
The extra trasmission hours are also very welcome.
Kelly Brook looked lovely in HD :-)
As for the DOG - keep pushing it further and further left - that's right - until it's off the screen.
Any chance of Andy Murray in the US Open Tennis semi-final in HD?
Or the final if he makes it?
Or the final in HD anyway?
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 6th Sep 2008, Briantist wrote:Danielle Nagler: If you really, really must DOG, the ones on the iPlayer (small, at the top left and just three letters) are more acceptable.
Thanks for getting the 7pm start in.
Also, did you know that BSkyB are using a company called RDM to try and block Freesat HD installations?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 6th Sep 2008, pauljarvis86 wrote:daveac (comment #5): Sky have the TV rights to the US Open, which is shown on Sky Sports HD3.
I can't help thinking Jonathan Ross is a strange choice for an HD programme, as wonderful as it is, it is after all just a chat show. Though I assume one of the primary reasons for choosing this show is to test the studio out.
As for the DOGs, is there really much investigation needed? I've yet to see a positive comment on DOGs anywhere, so if you can show us the research that suggests DOGs are necessary then do so, otherwise just listen to the viewers and set a trend in the industry by getting rid of them from ALL 91Èȱ¬ channels.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 6th Sep 2008, Briantist wrote:Just in case you missed all the history, here are a few links!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 6th Sep 2008, mikewestham wrote:Have only just noticed this blog so a chance to do two things. Firstly to send my thanks for the best HD broadcaster there is. Thank you for putting out some superb shows, sports and films over the past year or so - it has been superb!
Secondly a subject close to my heart and even nearer to my eyes! DOGs - I have been complaining and moaning about these for ages and it is such a pleasure to see someone from a broadcaster actually raise the issue and to seek views.
For me DOGs are an absolutely pointless intrusion serving no benefit to the viewer. Sky typically reply to comments such as this by saying 'our viewers want them or it makes it possible for viewers to know which channel they are watching in this day and age of having hundreds of channels'. Are you kidding - there is something there called the electronic programme guide or the info button - press it and you will see what it it you are watching. In reality there are probably there to stop piracy etc.,
Another side effect of DOGs is the potential burn in for Plasma screens. 91Èȱ¬ ones are not so bad but have you seen the Disney ones? Surprising the kids can see any of the show behind the huge DOG they employ.
So come on 91Èȱ¬. Take a stand and make your superb service even better and remove the DOGs. If the 91Èȱ¬ did this then perhaps the lower quality options out there might also start to take notice. If you have to use them (to satisfy the content owners) then why not show them for the first 20 seconds or so then fade them out?
Here's hoping they will be gone for good soon!
Many thanks, Mike
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 6th Sep 2008, Bill Taylor wrote:Thanks for the update.
DOGs RiP please.
Please state why you can not return to 19Mbits/s transmission rate as in the trials. We can see the difference!
Please keep working on DD 5.1 sound.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 6th Sep 2008, daveac wrote:I'm in agreement with Bill-Taylor on 'bitrate'
There have been some comments (digital Spy Forums) about the picture quality on the J. Ross show.
Kelly Brook looked lovely on closeups - but maybe because of the lighting of this sort of show 'colour spots etc,' - the picture had a slight 'granular' look to it.
I do worry about the reduction from 19Mbs to 16.5. - flocks of birds and running water still test the system.
Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 7th Sep 2008, Scarletdragon wrote:#7 pauljarvis86 - Just a thought, but a lot of people documentaries feature archive clips from old talk shows such as Parky and Wogan. Assuming in 10-20 years everything will be in HD, having archive HD clips available from JR will be quite useful.
On the subject of DOGS - I'd go along with everyone else and request that you take them off. I make an active choice to watch the 91Èȱ¬ and get the name pop-up for a few seconds when I switch to the channel. That's all I need.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 7th Sep 2008, mwbennett wrote:On the subject of DOGS and your making a decision...
In the nicest possible way, please don't forget the 91Èȱ¬ is funded by us, the public.
It is abundantly clear that the public do not want DOGS on screen in any shape or form.
Please do what the people putting the money up for the 91Èȱ¬ want, and just get rid of the stupid intrusive DOGS!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 7th Sep 2008, scoobie wrote:Lets get the picture quality sorted before we get into a big debate on DOGS please. Thats far more important in my opinion
I think there are picture quality problems with 91Èȱ¬ HD. When watching the Paralympic Games Opening Ceremony I was shocked to see blocking artefacts on flashing lights, fast moving pictures, smoke etc during the ceremony, especially shots after fireworks when smoke is clearing.
I believe this is an issue with the compression 91Èȱ¬ HD is using. The 91Èȱ¬ is broadcasting at around 16Mbs I understand which is lower than that required for true HD
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 7th Sep 2008, mwbennett wrote:Having made my DOGS Point earlier, perhaps I should address the Jonathon Ross thing.
Whilst it's great to get more HD programming, a chat show isn't really something that is my highest priority for HD.
I'd far rather that documentaries and drama programmes were in HD than the fleeting-interest shows like JR (much as I enjoy watching the programme!).
I can understand why shows like JR would be those produced in HD first though - it has to be so much easier and cheaper to introduce HD to a studio-based controlled environment, with limited camera angles required and highly controllable lighting than the more difficult location work.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 7th Sep 2008, smithap66 wrote:Please put the DOG to sleep ASAP.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 8th Sep 2008, BettyHur wrote:DOGS ? - Crumbs ? - Master's table even 91Èȱ¬? Jesus what is the world coming to? High Definition if you ask me.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 8th Sep 2008, Digital Elysium wrote:On a completely unrelated topic, the programme "Johanna Lumley in the Land of the Northern Lights" simultaneously showed off the best and worst of 91Èȱ¬ HD.
In well-lit, day-time scenes of Norwegian fjords the picture clarity was breath-taking... some of the best I have seen on any HD transmission so far. I found myself turning to the rest of the family and saying "See! Told you it's worth the extra £10 a month!!"
In darker scenes, it was grainy with a number of artefacts on screen. Given that the programme was primarily about a spectacular event that occurs at night... the anticipated visual feast of seeing the Northern Lights in HD was somewhat of an anti-climax.
I can only assume, as has already been posted, the transmission rates are the cause of this irregularity.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 8th Sep 2008, derek500 wrote:What's going on with 91Èȱ¬ HD? Jonathan Ross was a yet another example of recent HD programming being well below par in picture quality.
There was just so much grain, which just shouldn't be there in a well lit studio production. The recent Last Choir Standing suffered from similar problems, as did I'd Do Anything.
I had a peek at Last of the Summer Wine, last night and that looked as good as ever, so I doubt it's a bitrate/bandwidth issue.
Sky's 'studio' HD is second to none. I understand Noel Edmond's live Sky1 show is coming from TVC next Sunday, it will be interesting to see what PQ we get on that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 8th Sep 2008, Paul wrote:You only have to watch a movie with a DOG on the screen to realise how stupid they are - they frequently obliterate the picture - just seeing an actor with the TV station's logo embossed onto their forehead shows how they detract from the viewing experience.
My vote is NO DOGs!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 8th Sep 2008, Darren Clift wrote:Strictly Come Dancing
The above was in HD last year but the openingepisodeisn't this year.Whats happening.hope this is just the first programme not aired in HD
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 9th Sep 2008, grahamlthompson wrote:I have just recently acquired access to 91Èȱ¬ HD (freesat) and wish to join the list of people complaining about the HD dog. To be fair I have watched a lot of programmes in the same vein as planet earth and did not find the dog particulary intrusive. However with drama productions and also the recent Northern Lights I found the dog to be so intrusive as to seriously impact on the enjoyment of the programme. Looking carefully I believe that the problem arises when the dog background changes from a light colour to dark colour, this has the effect of dramatically enhancing the dog contrast and visiblity and the sudden change draws the eye to the dog and therefore away from the main action. If the 91Èȱ¬ wish to continue using this largely useless gimmick please attempt to automatically change the dog tranluscence in respect of its background to maintain the same level of visibility
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 9th Sep 2008, Bill Taylor wrote:Continuing the discussion of 91Èȱ¬ HD.
I have just finished watching Joanna Lumley in the Land of the Northern Lights on Sky HD.
I truly enjoyable experience: Vision, Sound and story. Joanna was enchanting. Thanks to all concerned!
Please explain why the experience was cut short by the continuity voice reminding us of what was on next. It cancelled out the atmosphere the programme created. This annoys me as much as the continued use of DOGS.
Please revisit the use of continuity voices before the programme ends. 91Èȱ¬ HD is not a normal channel so does not need it (I do not believe any channels need it and are harmed!)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 10th Sep 2008, DonHellings wrote:I prefer Dogs to Jonathan Ross.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 11th Sep 2008, Bill Taylor wrote:Many thanks for the Paralympics on HD all day.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 15th Sep 2008, derek500 wrote:So what is going on? The picture quality of the second JR Show was as bad as the first, yet Sky1 use your facilities and Noel's HQ was picture perfect, just as HD should be.
BTW, Tess of the D'Urbervilles was as good HD as I've seen and the first costume drama 91Èȱ¬ HD has done in DD5.1. Well done.
Can you explain wht JR and other LE shows from TVC are such bad quality?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 15th Sep 2008, Bill Taylor wrote:Last Night of the Proms: Excellent HD Picture Quality and DD 5.1 Surround Sound.
Many thanks to all concerned.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 15th Sep 2008, Darren Clift wrote:Is Merlin to be aired on 91Èȱ¬ HD?.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 15th Sep 2008, Trev wrote:Last night of the proms was quite good except for Alans microphone went a bit fully at the end. BUT The DOG obscured the name places on the screen. Later on they did move the DOG to the right hand side. So GET RID OF THE DOG.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 15th Sep 2008, derek500 wrote:Danielle, what's the 'official' reason for the Strictly Come Dancing results' show not being in HD?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 20th Sep 2008, GavinActual wrote:Danielle, I was just looking through the Radio Times website to try and find out what the schedule for Heroes season 3 on 91Èȱ¬ HD is going to be and there appears to be a major problem.
I hope this is merely a problem with the Radio Times listing but according to them on Wednesday the 1st of October 91Èȱ¬3 and 91Èȱ¬ HD are screening an episode of Heroes Season 3 called "The Butterfly Effect". Now this is 9 days after the series starts showing in the US which is fine, but rather alarming is the fact that "The Butterfly Effect" is the 2nd episode of Season 3. Apparently we get to see epsiode 2 before we find out what happens in episode 1?
Also episode 1 ("The Second Coming") is currently scheduled to screen 91Èȱ¬3 only, 2 days after episode 2 is first shown on 91Èȱ¬ 3 and 91Èȱ¬ HD. So 91Èȱ¬ 3 viewers get to see episode 1 but 91Èȱ¬ HD viewers don't?
The net result of this is that when 91Èȱ¬ viewers get to the end of episode 1 (this is if they watch things in order and have recorded episode 2 to watch after viewing episode 1) on Friday the 3rd of October. The US viewers will have already seen episode 3 and be 3 days away from episode 4.
I thought that the 91Èȱ¬ paid exclusive rights for Heroes so that we we wouldn't end up being potentially 2 epsiodes and weeks behind the US when it came to airing the show? And also so that the series would air in the right order?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 22nd Sep 2008, Bill Taylor wrote:Danielle: It seems to have gone quiet on the DOG front. How long have you given your team to research the problem?
My understanding was that the 91Èȱ¬ has decided to use the HD DOG to indicate when they are broadcasting HD content. I was surprised to see a trailer of a 91Èȱ¬ HD programme shown on 91Èȱ¬1 that included the preview HD DOG. SKY HD channels only use their HD DOG when they are broadcasting HD content. Eurosport have chosen to use an additional DOG (Full HD) to indicate when they are broadcasting HD content.
The delay in you responding to the remove DOG request implies to me that you have hit a brick wall that you are embarrassed to share with us?
Hope to hear from you soon (and the removal of the HD DOG please).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 24th Sep 2008, NickReynolds wrote:Danielle has responded to some of your comments in this post.
Nick Reynolds (editor, 91Èȱ¬ Internet blog)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 30th Sep 2008, sipasblog wrote:There's some wonderful stuff on 91Èȱ¬ HD (eg Tess, Bruce Parry, Later).
A couple of annoyances that I'm sure the 91Èȱ¬ will sort out:
1. The DOG - completely pointless and ruins some of the beautiful images - so much so that I've watched some things on non-HD just to get rid of it.
2. Some strange timings - it makes it difficult to plan sometimes when things aren't simulcast. Sometimes I've watched something in non-HD only to find out that it's on HD on a different day. Episode one of Heroes is just on 91Èȱ¬2 but episode 2 is on HD straight afterwards??!?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 4th Oct 2008, rammie96 wrote:Just got HD installed (via Sat) and 91Èȱ¬ HD looks great.
But is unwatchable due the sound being permanently out of sync - it runs significantly behind the picture.
Looking at other forums etc it seems that this is a common problem. Can this be sorted please?
Whoever needs to get it sorted (91Èȱ¬ and/or Sky) can we get a resolution please?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 11th Oct 2008, daveac wrote:I hope this blog entry is still being read now as of 11th Oct.
I'm worried about the 91Èȱ¬ HD picture quality as it does often seem to be poorer than it was.
Tonight I caught the end of 'Last of the Summer Wine' - and in the 'full daylight' scene it looked as good as I remember it being.
'Strictly Come Dancing' was better than 'Friday Night with R Ross' and although it was not the best of pictures it is Live and J Ross show isn't.
Then after watching 'Merlin' (getting better) on 91Èȱ¬ 1 - because it is unfortunately made in SD not HD - I switched back to 91Èȱ¬ HD and caught the end of 'Torchwood.'
But I have to say I didn't think the picture tonight on 'Torchwood' was as good as I remembered it being.
And lately - although I'm enjoying 'Amazon' as a programme - often it looks more DVD quality than HD.
I'm sorry to say these things but I do believe because some SD can look so bad (thankfully not often on the main channels) - that HD seems to be heading towards 'SD for Big TVs' - rather than the best of broadcasting.
I say all this as someone who watches a higher percentage of 91Èȱ¬ programming now than in recent years because of the overall high standard of shows.
Well done on that. Cheers, daveac
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 27th Oct 2008, grahamlthompson wrote:Watched Little Dorrit last night in glorious HD and no distracting dog, really enjoyed it. Many many thanks to Danielle.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 29th Dec 2009, janis17656haris wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 15th Jan 2009, dereknights wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 27th Jan 2009, i_amAlexMc1 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 27th Jan 2009, Al wrote:Hi,
I'd like to take this opportunity to give you some more feedback about 91Èȱ¬ HD.
Firstly, I'd like to say how wonderful the picture was for the 91Èȱ¬'s programme Natural World "Mountains of the Monsoon".
This is the single best picture I've ever seen over HD broadcast and in places it looked like Blu Ray, congratulations!
On the negative side, unfortunately, the vast majority of HD material doesn't even come close to this standard and ranges from poor to good.
eg. The 91Èȱ¬ ran a HD advert over Christmas featuring a polar bear sliding down a glacier. What a bad advert for 91Èȱ¬ HD!! The picture was terrible, extremely soft!
All I can say really is can the 91Èȱ¬ try to standardise the cameras, lenses and codes / bit rates used in the Natural World Mountains of the Monsoon across 91Èȱ¬ HD production service because it really was sublime.
Even Oceans, which is good in quality doesn't come close to Natural World Mountains of the Monsoon in picture quality, which say something for the equipment and production techniques used.
The 91Èȱ¬ need to learn from this and adopt them across the board.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 29th Jan 2009, Al wrote:Just wanted to add as well, the 91Èȱ¬ should take a look at Luxe HD on FTA Astra 2D.
It absolutely sets the standard for HD - Blu Ray quality at times and far ahead of the 91Èȱ¬ at this time.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 29th Jan 2009, Andy Quested wrote:Dear Alsone
Thank you for your post. Can I point you at another blog
/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/bbc_hd_picture_quality_and_dol.html
and this one:
/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/12/a_christmas_present_from_the_h.html
We make a very wide range of programmes in high definition and not everyone will like the style or content of all of them. I have seen the polar bear shot sequence in Planet Earth many time and it is an amazingly good piece of television and under normal viewing conditions is very high quality.
I hope this helps
Andy
I hope
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 14th Feb 2009, daveac wrote:Well again I was disappointed with the picture on Jonathan Ross - Friday 13th Feb 09 - is it all the 'purple?' because switching between standard Freeview and 91Èȱ¬ HD on FreeSat - there was a difference - BUT it wasn't a great difference.
A good show with good guests - but I might as well have watched it in SD.
TV - Toshiba 42Z3030 with PACE HD Sat system.
Sorry, daveac
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 13th Jun 2009, U14033173 wrote:Also episode 1 ("The Second Coming") is currently scheduled to screen 91Èȱ¬3 only, 2 days after episode 2 is first shown on 91Èȱ¬ 3 and 91Èȱ¬ HD. So 91Èȱ¬ 3 viewers get to see episode 1 but 91Èȱ¬ HD viewers don't.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)