STV seemed to have removed their DOG on STV HD so you watch some ITV content on there DOGLESS (other channels 10936V, 3855), note STV usually shows different movies though.
they also have a paragraph of text under the usual DOG. I have not hung around long enough to read what it says, though. And don't start me off about spoilers for the next episode followed by squeezing of and talking over closing credits.
Dude ! I think that we may have been separated at birth !
STV seemed to have removed their DOG on STV HD so you watch some ITV content on there DOGLESS (other channels 10936V, 3855), note STV usually shows different movies though.
Perhaps ITV will realise sometime soon that the DOG stops a significant number of viewers from watching their HD channels surely that is the bottom line, it will be interesting to see how long it takes, I dont think Crozier is a very sharp tool, it will probabaly take a set of poor viewing figures & the threat of loss of ad revenue to change things...
Well I got a reply, the fastest reply yet from ITV:
[...]
"We can confirm that the brightness of the HD DOGS was been reduced by 30% on the 25th October 2010. We have no plans to make further changes but please be assured that all members of the Creative team, who are responsible for our DOGS, have been made aware of your views."
[...]
Hmmm... I smell bullshit... What does "was been" mean anyway? And there is no way those DOG's are 30% more oparue than they were at the start of October.
(That's a car passing in front of the action, not a blackout!)
They have done *something*, which as far as I can see amounts to removing a 'blown out' effect on the DOG, but that's it. No real difference in opacity. Either somebody is lying or there is, to put it politely, one heck of an internal communications failure at ITV.
(That's a car passing in front of the action, not a blackout!)
They have done *something*, which as far as I can see amounts to removing a 'blown out' effect on the DOG, but that's it. No real difference in opacity. Either somebody is lying or there is, to put it politely, one heck of an internal communications failure at ITV.
I had the same e-mail reply but the title had (DS) at the end which made me suspicious that they were just replying with a standard answer to any enquiries which looked like they were a follow up to this thread.
they all probably laugh at your emails saying the logo is to big.
come on, is this thread serious or is it a wind up?
ITV is sending misleading replies to its viewers, probably systematically to DS posters judging from grimsbsyseagulls' post. That's quite serious. Whatever led them to do this, I don't think they are sitting around laughing about it.
So yes, this is a serious thread. I'm not so sure about you.
I would have no real issue with dogs (Other than the really big non-transparent types) if I did not have a plasma telly. Image retention is a real concern for me. I watched an hour of Cartoon Network last night and it's taken ALL DAY for the logo to begin fading from the screen and this is a modern Panasonic G20 too!
All dogs need to be transparent or go altogether. There is no need for them. They are there purely for branding and nothing else. Anyone can easily tell what channel they are on on digital TV.
But faced with a choice of a future where all channels have DOGs, or (at least) the PSB channels don't have DOGs, I know which I would prefer.
Channel 5 is a (supposedly) PSB channel, and it has a DOG even on analogue.
Trust me, all TV channels will have DOGS permanently on them once digital switch-over is complete, as they do in almost every other country and have done for years. The only exceptions, if we're lucky, will be premium subscription movie channels.
Sad, but true I'm afraid.
All dogs need to be transparent or go altogether. There is no need for them. They are there purely for branding and nothing else. Anyone can easily tell what channel they are on on digital TV.
They're not just there to tell the viewer what channel they're on, and never have been. They're mainly there to "watermark" the transmission to discourage illegal piracy of copyright content, as it will always be clear where it originated. That's why they are usually well into the picture area, or it would be possible to hide them by cropping and/or zooming the image.
There is no need for them to be solid and/or brightly coloured though.
Channel 5 is a (supposedly) PSB channel, and it has a DOG even on analogue.
I don't think 5 has any Public Service remit at all. You might be thinking of Ch4. 5 wasn't asked to do any as their coverage reach was so small on analogue.
Still nice and transparent. I am much pleased by this being a plasma owner. Please let it stay that way! Now if only all channels followed the same path or got rid of them altogether!
Still nice and transparent. I am much pleased by this being a plasma owner. Please let it stay that way! Now if only all channels followed the same path or got rid of them altogether!
Good thing is it's done it for all the ITV channels:).
They're mainly there to "watermark" the transmission to discourage illegal piracy of copyright content, as it will always be clear where it originated.
No they're not. There are real watermarks (invisible and virtually impossible to remove) for that. Transparent logos can be removed easily.
What piracy threat to you imagine this stops? DVDs of Coronation Street? BluRays of movies which have already been released on BluRay? Knock-offs of dramas which have only been shown on ITV? Hint: if they've only been shown on ITV, you don't need a watermark to show where they came from!
I don't think 5 has any Public Service remit at all.
In fact it does:
't would appear that Desmond is eager to retain Five's public service broadcasting licence, which means that the channel would have to go on providing a news service... . If Desmond were to sacrifice the channel's public-service broadcasting commitments it could jeopardise Five's placement, at number five of course, on the electronic programming guides on both free-to-air and pay television. It is a valuable slot.'
I don't think 5 has any Public Service remit at all. You might be thinking of Ch4. 5 wasn't asked to do any as their coverage reach was so small on analogue.
Channel 5 has always had PSB commitments including news, regional/independent production quotas etc. They also broadcast a substantial amount of kids programmes. As a PSB it's guaranteed 5/105 on all EPGs
It's transparent to the point of really not being obtrusive at all. In fact it's so barely visible, it begs the question, "why bother with it"!
It's similar to BBC One HD now, both in size, transparency and positioning. Excellent!
After comparing a few old ITV HD recordings with today's output, my guess is that ITV agreed to reduce the 'opacity' to 30% a few months ago (I had a similar letter back then) but some numpty misunderstood the instruction as reduce it by 30%. So we ended up with a logo/DOG 70% opaque until yesterday, when they finally got it right.
Where ITV HD seems to have stolen a march on the BBC HD channels is that they drop the logo altogether for upscaled programmes, judging by what I've seen today. Even more excellent!
Comments
Dude ! I think that we may have been separated at birth !
not any more
Fine. But I wouldn't brag about your lack of taste if I was you.
No one is saying it's the most important issue in the world. It's not even the most important issue in TV.
But faced with a choice of a future where all channels have DOGs, or (at least) the PSB channels don't have DOGs, I know which I would prefer.
I'm not sure how any viewer could sanely argue the opposite.
Cheers,
David.
Quite right. Here's Coronation Street on Oct 7:
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?26k31hr41pi3nus
and November 28:
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?w6397t6tgvafbtk
(That's a car passing in front of the action, not a blackout!)
They have done *something*, which as far as I can see amounts to removing a 'blown out' effect on the DOG, but that's it. No real difference in opacity. Either somebody is lying or there is, to put it politely, one heck of an internal communications failure at ITV.
...And both show a huge increase in opacity compared to Sept 26, at which point I could watch ITV HD.
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?6x44ww4tdb36da6
So bye bye again, ITV!
OH SWEET JESUS,
do you sleep ok at nights? you have the weight of the world on your shoulders sonny,
what are you about 5 or a grumpy old man?
I always thought that too.
Your failure to even come close to replicating that is obvious by your extreemly childish response.
Perhaps it would've been better if you'd said nothing at all, 'mrinstaller'.
come on, is this thread serious or is it a wind up?
What a rude...installer. Seems to me though you are the one carrying the weight of the world:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1360267&page=10
If your job is getting you down it's no reason to take it out on other posters. Sonny. Or should that be Mr Dodgy (post #234)?
ITV is sending misleading replies to its viewers, probably systematically to DS posters judging from grimsbsyseagulls' post. That's quite serious. Whatever led them to do this, I don't think they are sitting around laughing about it.
So yes, this is a serious thread. I'm not so sure about you.
PS Thanks, StuartPlymouth.
All dogs need to be transparent or go altogether. There is no need for them. They are there purely for branding and nothing else. Anyone can easily tell what channel they are on on digital TV.
Trust me, all TV channels will have DOGS permanently on them once digital switch-over is complete, as they do in almost every other country and have done for years. The only exceptions, if we're lucky, will be premium subscription movie channels.
Sad, but true I'm afraid. They're not just there to tell the viewer what channel they're on, and never have been. They're mainly there to "watermark" the transmission to discourage illegal piracy of copyright content, as it will always be clear where it originated. That's why they are usually well into the picture area, or it would be possible to hide them by cropping and/or zooming the image.
There is no need for them to be solid and/or brightly coloured though.
Let's hope it stays that way.
I don't think 5 has any Public Service remit at all. You might be thinking of Ch4. 5 wasn't asked to do any as their coverage reach was so small on analogue.
What piracy threat to you imagine this stops? DVDs of Coronation Street? BluRays of movies which have already been released on BluRay? Knock-offs of dramas which have only been shown on ITV? Hint: if they've only been shown on ITV, you don't need a watermark to show where they came from!
Cheers,
David.
In fact it does:
't would appear that Desmond is eager to retain Five's public service broadcasting licence, which means that the channel would have to go on providing a news service... . If Desmond were to sacrifice the channel's public-service broadcasting commitments it could jeopardise Five's placement, at number five of course, on the electronic programming guides on both free-to-air and pay television. It is a valuable slot.'
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23858459-can-richard-desmond-repeat-his-ok-success-with-channel-five.do
Channel 5 has always had PSB commitments including news, regional/independent production quotas etc. They also broadcast a substantial amount of kids programmes. As a PSB it's guaranteed 5/105 on all EPGs
Yes, massively so.
It's transparent to the point of really not being obtrusive at all. In fact it's so barely visible, it begs the question, "why bother with it"!
It's similar to BBC One HD now, both in size, transparency and positioning. Excellent!
After comparing a few old ITV HD recordings with today's output, my guess is that ITV agreed to reduce the 'opacity' to 30% a few months ago (I had a similar letter back then) but some numpty misunderstood the instruction as reduce it by 30%. So we ended up with a logo/DOG 70% opaque until yesterday, when they finally got it right.
Where ITV HD seems to have stolen a march on the BBC HD channels is that they drop the logo altogether for upscaled programmes, judging by what I've seen today. Even more excellent!