[Gav12]

Hi, the BBC HD blog has been updated with some new shows in HD one of the been 'Dragons' Den'

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

[IanP]

Interesting opening to the blog talking about DOGs and bitrates then

But I hope my instincts are right that for many of you the content that we are able to bring you in HD is what determines whether you want to watch the channel.

Given that the channel has no exclusive content or premiere showings AFAIK, the only reasons I can think of to watch it would be picture and sound quality. I doubt many viewers watch shows more than once (except maybe comedies). So the main content issue is which shows should be simulcast and a major criteria for answering that would have to include the absence of a DOG. I wouldn't choose to watch a show with a DOG if there's an option to watch it at the same time without one. Doctor Who repeats on BBC Three are sometimes shown with an interactive version with commentary option and no DOG. The picture quality on the interactive streams is a little worse than BBC Three (on Freeview) but I still prefer the DOG free version to the abomination that is the BBC Three DOG.

[awo1949]

@IanP

I've recently had a experience which echoes your sentiments. My adult son is on holiday with us and I was showing off my HDR. He's a Doctor Who fan and normally watches on iPlayer. I had several episodes stored (the HDR can record them faster than we can watch them) so I chose one of these. His first, and immediate, reaction was the BBC 3 DOG. He later admitted that the PQ was a lot better, but his first reaction was telling.

[digiwigi]

Originally Posted by IanP

So the main content issue is which shows should be simulcast and a major criteria for answering that would have to include the absence of a DOG. I wouldn't choose to watch a show with a DOG if there's an option to watch it at the same time without one.

Yes, but lots of people also don't care that much about DOG's, particularly if they're not of the Disney Cinemagic XXL variety. I would watch HD with a small transparent DOG over a noticeably worse SD DOG free picture anyday.

[Fatbloke99]

Don't much care for the sly dig "I know that for some who read this programmes are a second order issue, compared to the DOG and our broadcast bitrate."

The whole reason I object to DOGS and poor bitrate is precisely because they get in the way of the program. I watch programs, not channels...which is anathema to marketing types.

[scoobiesnacks]

Originally Posted by Fatbloke99

Don't much care for the sly dig "I know that for some who read this programmes are a second order issue, compared to the DOG and our broadcast bitrate."

The whole reason I object to DOGS and poor bitrate is precisely because they get in the way of the program. I watch programs, not channels...which is anathema to marketing types.

I agree.
I didn't care much for that point too .
I hope you posted that to her blog.

[larkim]

I have to say I agree with the blog. If I'm absorbed by a programme (which I hope to be) then almost no matter what the DOG looks like, or (mostly) what the bitrate is like, I simply don't care.

Apart from forum and usenet users (who tend to have a passion for TV and high standards) I've never once met anyone who has an issue with DOGs. And so many people are perfectly happy with VCR quality, that I doubt that bitrate is an issue to the majority either, perhaps with the exception of watching live sport (especially football) where blocky grass can be annoying.

It may be that I just move in a circle of people who don't care about these things, but I do think that programming quality is the top priority.

Matt

[alves]

I can live with DOGs providing they aren't too intrusive. Its when they are animated that it annoys me.

Still, Dragon's Den, Finding Nemo and Wimbledon in HD all something to look forward to in ths alves household!

[emdee]

Originally Posted by larkim

And so many people are perfectly happy with VCR quality, that I doubt that bitrate is an issue to the majority either, perhaps with the exception of watching live sport (especially football) where blocky grass can be annoying.

It may be that I just move in a circle of people who don't care about these things, but I do think that programming quality is the top priority.

In the context of the HD channel though, surely people do care about picture quality (including not having bits of it obscured by pointless logos) - otherwise they'd be happy with the SD channels and doubtless would not even have bought the HD hardware?

[johnny7]

Originally Posted by IanP

Interesting opening to the blog talking about DOGs and bitrates.
Given that the channel has no exclusive content or premiere showings AFAIK, the only reasons I can think of to watch it would be picture and sound quality.

I quite agree - I thought Danielle Naglers comments were rather, ill-considered, dismissive, and arrogant.

Originally Posted by Fatbloke99

Don't much care for the sly dig ...

The whole reason I object to DOGS and poor bitrate is precisely because they get in the way of the program.

Quite - I do think Danielle does not come across well with this snide little comment.

Originally Posted by scoobiesnacks

I agree.
I didn't care much for that point too .
I hope you posted that to her blog.

I have contributed to her blog before but given her attitude now I am not inclined to offer the comfort of additional 'viewing figures' to bolster her ego.

Originally Posted by larkim

I have to say I agree with the blog. If I'm absorbed by a programme (which I hope to be) then almost no matter what the DOG looks like, or (mostly) what the bitrate is like, I simply don't care.

Then, watch the programme on one of the SD channels - as IanP says BBC HD 'has no exclusive content ' so you don't need an HD receiver if you you don't care about picture quality.

Sadly, Danielle Naglers attitude is very much in line with the increasingly dismissive recent posturing of BBC managers.

Very sad to the Beeb go this way.

john