Originally Posted by fancyabrew:
“ITV sport has ALWAYS been hopeless compared to BBC, apart from the Big Match in the 70's”
“ITV sport has ALWAYS been hopeless compared to BBC, apart from the Big Match in the 70's”
As I said...
ITV miss another goal (merged)
51 of 54
Daily Mail going with the saboteur line. QUOTE: "The fact that HDTV broadcasts are screened four seconds later than conventional tv also fuelled conspiracy theories. A saboteur could have seen England score on a regular tv channel and then pulled the plug to take advantage of the fact an HD viewer would not have known England were ahead". QUOTE.
Originally Posted by tellytart1:
“This isn't possible. The two encoding methods are completely different, so you wouldn't gain any advantage at all in co-timing the SD and HD feeds as received at home. All you'd be adding is another piece of kit in the transmission chain that could fail.”
“This isn't possible. The two encoding methods are completely different, so you wouldn't gain any advantage at all in co-timing the SD and HD feeds as received at home. All you'd be adding is another piece of kit in the transmission chain that could fail.”
So MPEG2 and MPEG4 encode at different speeds, fine.
But then chances are the SD chain also includes another piece of kit to slow it down; the downconverter from incoming HD feed from the ground, so originally ITV HD was going straight from South Africa, encode to Mpeg4 then out, while ITV1 was HD, downconvert, encode and then out.
Did anyone check the difference between ITV1 and ITV HD after HD channel came back with what was supposed to be upconverted SD because that could have had a huge delay of down conversion and up conversion.
"Human error" could also be a description for a person not programming the bumper playout machine correctly (removing the regular booking). Machine error is usually down to human error in operating it, so the reason given by ITV doesn't really say much, just that they don't need to spend money on upgrading their systems just their staff.
Originally Posted by insomniac500:
“...Machine error is usually down to human error in operating it, so the reason given by ITV doesn't really say much, just that they don't need to spend money on upgrading their systems just their staff.”
“...Machine error is usually down to human error in operating it, so the reason given by ITV doesn't really say much, just that they don't need to spend money on upgrading their systems just their staff.”
As I said in another thread, I cannot get my head around why, if it was simply someone pressing a "wrong button", did it take 20 seconds to revert back to the live feed?
Surely all that needed to be done was for the operator to press the "live feed" button. Or is that an over simplification?
Originally Posted by BenFranklin:
“If I and a lot of people in this thread made a mistake of this magnitude at our work, we'd be sacked.”
“If I and a lot of people in this thread made a mistake of this magnitude at our work, we'd be sacked.”
I'd assume, having done it myself, that many posters who have/do work in telly or radio may have taken stations off-air by accident, broadcast dead air etc. It happens, you rectify the error and move on.
What would sacking someone who is probably a highly skilled person to be in that job in the first place really achieve, outside of the bubble that is Digital Spy?
Originally Posted by franchise:
“I'd assume, having done it myself, that many posters who have/do work in telly or radio may have taken stations off-air by accident, broadcast dead air etc. It happens, you rectify the error and move on.
What would sacking someone who is probably a highly skilled person to be in that job in the first place really achieve, outside of the bubble that is Digital Spy?”
“I'd assume, having done it myself, that many posters who have/do work in telly or radio may have taken stations off-air by accident, broadcast dead air etc. It happens, you rectify the error and move on.
What would sacking someone who is probably a highly skilled person to be in that job in the first place really achieve, outside of the bubble that is Digital Spy?”
im sorry but did you take ITV 1 HD off air, just as England scored a goal, no disrespect but taking a local radio station off air for a few seconds, is not the same thing.
Just looked at this on YouTube and it isn't actually an advert it's a sponsorship plug for the football that appeared, then the ITV1 HD logo as though it's just about to start an ad break and then the screen goes blank for a few seconds before reverting to the live feed.
The last time I saw a problem on ITV it was on the weather where the sponsorship appeared and then no weather, then the continuity announcer was apologising for the problem and as he was talking the weather came back on and he finished up talking over the weather presenter.
I think pressing the wrong buttons is actually a common problem, it's not unusual on BBC Breakfast for a London or Yorkshire news bulletin to be shown to the North West and people have said on here before that ITV sometimes give them the wrong regional forecast mid morning and mid afternoon.
The last time I saw a problem on ITV it was on the weather where the sponsorship appeared and then no weather, then the continuity announcer was apologising for the problem and as he was talking the weather came back on and he finished up talking over the weather presenter.
I think pressing the wrong buttons is actually a common problem, it's not unusual on BBC Breakfast for a London or Yorkshire news bulletin to be shown to the North West and people have said on here before that ITV sometimes give them the wrong regional forecast mid morning and mid afternoon.
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“im sorry but did you take ITV 1 HD off air, just as England scored a goal, no disrespect but taking a local radio station off air for a few seconds, is not the same thing.”
“im sorry but did you take ITV 1 HD off air, just as England scored a goal, no disrespect but taking a local radio station off air for a few seconds, is not the same thing.”
Of course not, but neither the viewer, nor the person in question knew a goal was about to be scored. A mistake was made, the timing was really, really bad luck.
Originally Posted by franchise:
“Of course not, but neither the viewer, nor the person in question knew a goal was about to be scored. A mistake was made, the timing was really, really bad luck.”
“Of course not, but neither the viewer, nor the person in question knew a goal was about to be scored. A mistake was made, the timing was really, really bad luck.”
goal or no goal, is it really accpetable for that kind of mistake to be made in a World Cup game, should they not have had, the better staff on, during the World Cup.
Originally Posted by epm-84:
“I think pressing the wrong buttons is actually a common problem, it's not unusual on BBC Breakfast for a London or Yorkshire news bulletin to be shown to the North West and people have said on here before that ITV sometimes give them the wrong regional forecast mid morning and mid afternoon.”
“I think pressing the wrong buttons is actually a common problem, it's not unusual on BBC Breakfast for a London or Yorkshire news bulletin to be shown to the North West and people have said on here before that ITV sometimes give them the wrong regional forecast mid morning and mid afternoon.”
That's why they should've kept all the regions separate, instead of merging them all.
Originally Posted by marclt:
“Did the problem affect stv HD or just itv1 HD ???”
“Did the problem affect stv HD or just itv1 HD ???”
Will we ever know?
I douubt anyone was watching on stvHD
Originally Posted by 1701-E:
“Will we ever know?
I douubt anyone was watching on stvHD”
“Will we ever know?
I douubt anyone was watching on stvHD
”
Enjoying UTV HD?
Apologies if this has already been posted..
How the 1966 World Cup final would have looked at the hands of ITV
http://origin.101greatgoals.com/how-...-of-itv/57098/
How the 1966 World Cup final would have looked at the hands of ITV
http://origin.101greatgoals.com/how-...-of-itv/57098/
Originally Posted by PhilH36:
“Daily Mail going with the saboteur line. QUOTE: "The fact that HDTV broadcasts are screened four seconds later than conventional tv also fuelled conspiracy theories. A saboteur could have seen England score on a regular tv channel and then pulled the plug to take advantage of the fact an HD viewer would not have known England were ahead". QUOTE.”
“Daily Mail going with the saboteur line. QUOTE: "The fact that HDTV broadcasts are screened four seconds later than conventional tv also fuelled conspiracy theories. A saboteur could have seen England score on a regular tv channel and then pulled the plug to take advantage of the fact an HD viewer would not have known England were ahead". QUOTE.”
Possible, or someone kicked a cable out in his excitement as the goal went in.
But the goal happened 7.5 seconds after the throw in (which was shown).
EDIT
Have just timed the delay from radio 5 live AM to ITV1 HD, in the Holland match. Used the referee's whistle for start-stop. The delay is 6.95 seconds (averaged over 3). As R5 Live AM could also have slight delays (we don't know) it does now seem likely tpo me that the feed-drop is related to the England goal, not coincidental.
Last edited by d'@ve : 14-06-2010 at 13:52
Is there any feeling that ITV are staffed on the basis that "probably nothing will go wrong" but BBC set their staffing levels on the basis that "probably something may go wrong", hence the difference in the numbers of people sent out to cover the WC. As evidence, when the Gabby Logan VT went down during BBCs coverage of the first match, there was no blank screen, just an instant switch to a live feed (of the groundsmen, IIRC!). Perhaps they had an extra operator in place to cover for problems, but ITV/Technicolour were a "man short"?
Perhaps someone "in the know" could comment?
K
Perhaps someone "in the know" could comment?
K
Originally Posted by Zenith:
“As I said in another thread, I cannot get my head around why, if it was simply someone pressing a "wrong button", did it take 20 seconds to revert back to the live feed?
Surely all that needed to be done was for the operator to press the "live feed" button. Or is that an over simplification?”
“As I said in another thread, I cannot get my head around why, if it was simply someone pressing a "wrong button", did it take 20 seconds to revert back to the live feed?
Surely all that needed to be done was for the operator to press the "live feed" button. Or is that an over simplification?”
The operator could have been viewing the next bumper to check it off air and accidentally had it stil routed out, like occasions when you can still hear voice over people after a show has happened.
Or the system was fully automated and when it's next programmed time slot came up it fired, just no one had told it to skip because the football was on and not another program. Agree that in this situation it would have been good to have a live button, but in normal operating mode why would you want to interupt the ad bumper? You get to the ad point, it fires off it's prearranged video then five seconds later the advert server kicks in and plays out its prearranged video. It's probably a system further down the transmit chain so couldn't be simply switched back, like having a train switched down a siding; you'd have to stop it, put it in reverse and get it back to the signal before you can carry on the main line.
The posts yesterday from TV experts seemed pretty conclusive that deliberate sabotage was not possible due to there being no real delay (ie, if I understood rightly, the delay being post encoding and transmission).
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.
Yet the Mail claim ITV chiefs called the timing of the incident 'remarkably coincidental' (as it obviously was as this has occurred just twice in a year and both coincided exactly with the key 20 seconds of the match - with odds of millions to one against that).
So if it was indeed simply by chance it was with high odds against.
They also add the comment ''sabotage has not been ruled out' and it is presented as a quote from ITV.
So I would like to see the reaction to this from those whose posts last night appeared to logically refute the possibility (beyond suggesting a Derren Brown style prescient saboteur).
Are the Mail misquoting ITV here or is there a way this might have happened?
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.
Yet the Mail claim ITV chiefs called the timing of the incident 'remarkably coincidental' (as it obviously was as this has occurred just twice in a year and both coincided exactly with the key 20 seconds of the match - with odds of millions to one against that).
So if it was indeed simply by chance it was with high odds against.
They also add the comment ''sabotage has not been ruled out' and it is presented as a quote from ITV.
So I would like to see the reaction to this from those whose posts last night appeared to logically refute the possibility (beyond suggesting a Derren Brown style prescient saboteur).
Are the Mail misquoting ITV here or is there a way this might have happened?
Surely there is no smoking gun
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ngland-goal.do
Is there ?
Begs the question , who gained ? The Bookies or are they saying that the it was the Beeb who sabotaged the ITV shown game
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ngland-goal.do
Is there ?
Begs the question , who gained ? The Bookies or are they saying that the it was the Beeb who sabotaged the ITV shown game
Originally Posted by Jaycee Dove:
“The posts yesterday from TV experts seemed pretty conclusive that deliberate sabotage was not possible due to there being no real delay (ie, if I understood rightly, the delay being post encoding and transmission).
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.”
“The posts yesterday from TV experts seemed pretty conclusive that deliberate sabotage was not possible due to there being no real delay (ie, if I understood rightly, the delay being post encoding and transmission).
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.”
Conspiracy theorists of the world unite
Originally Posted by Jaycee Dove:
“The posts yesterday from TV experts seemed pretty conclusive that deliberate sabotage was not possible due to there being no real delay (ie, if I understood rightly, the delay being post encoding and transmission).
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.”
“The posts yesterday from TV experts seemed pretty conclusive that deliberate sabotage was not possible due to there being no real delay (ie, if I understood rightly, the delay being post encoding and transmission).
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.”
Because it makes a good story
Quote:
“Yet the Mail claim ITV chiefs called the timing of the incident 'remarkably coincidental' (as it obviously was as this has occurred just twice in a year and both coincided exactly with the key 20 seconds of the match - with odds of millions to one against that).
They also add the comment ''sabotage has not been ruled out' and it is presented as a quote from ITV.”
“Yet the Mail claim ITV chiefs called the timing of the incident 'remarkably coincidental' (as it obviously was as this has occurred just twice in a year and both coincided exactly with the key 20 seconds of the match - with odds of millions to one against that).
They also add the comment ''sabotage has not been ruled out' and it is presented as a quote from ITV.”
They aren't saying that now (possibly after taking legal advice)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...land-goal.html
Quote:
“Are the Mail misquoting ITV here ?”
“Are the Mail misquoting ITV here ?”
Yes
A formal complaint has now been lodged with OFCOM. ITV complaints weren't interested in taking a complaint about it from me.
Nearly 1.5m viewers missed England’s first goal of the 2010 World Cup after an embarrassing blunder on ITV1 HD.
Just before Steven Gerrard slotted home England’s opener against USA at around 7.34pm, the game was interrupted on ITV1 HD by an advert for Hyundai – one the commercial broadcaster’s flagship sponsors for the tournament.
An audience of 1.48m (6.02%) only caught the tail end of England’s celebrations after ITV immediately switched the transmission to standard definition, which was unaffected by the human error.
The company apologised “unreservedly” for the interruption and blamed its transmission provider Technicolor.
A spokesman said: “An error by ITV’s transmission providers, Technicolor, meant that ITV1 HD’s coverage of the England v USA match was interrupted for approximately 20 seconds. ITV1’s standard definition coverage was unaffected.”
The broadcaster investigated immediately and it discovered that human error was to blame for the incident. It met with Technicolor yesterday morning, where strong words were exchanged and measures were put in place to prevent a similar mistake.
Will Berryman, senior vice president operations - digital content delivery at Technicolor, said: “Technicolor deeply regrets this incident and its impact on ITV and its viewers. Investigations are continuing as a matter of the utmost urgency in order to ensure that the issues are addressed with immediate effects.”
Despite the apology, England fans were up in arms. “ITV should not be allowed to broadcast any live football event,” said one viewer on an itv.com forum.
Another added: “Adrian Chiles [said England’s performance was] ‘the usual mix of hope and horror’. Sums up ITV’s coverage quite nicely I think.”
It is not the first time football fans have been left fuming by an error in ITV’s live football coverage. Millions had watched the dramatic Everton v Liverpool FA Cup match last year for nearly two goalless hours when the broadcast in some areas switched to a commercial for Tic Tacs - missing 19-year-old Dan Gosling’s 118th minute goal for Everton.
More than 1,000 fans complained about the incident and the then chairman Michael Grade said the “glitch” was “inexcusable”.
Viewers have also complained about ITV’s online World Cup coverage after some were locked out of the live stream of the tournament’s opening game between South Africa and Mexico. Others have been frustrated by slow loading pages and streams buffering continuously.
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/b...e?referrer=RSS
Just before Steven Gerrard slotted home England’s opener against USA at around 7.34pm, the game was interrupted on ITV1 HD by an advert for Hyundai – one the commercial broadcaster’s flagship sponsors for the tournament.
An audience of 1.48m (6.02%) only caught the tail end of England’s celebrations after ITV immediately switched the transmission to standard definition, which was unaffected by the human error.
The company apologised “unreservedly” for the interruption and blamed its transmission provider Technicolor.
A spokesman said: “An error by ITV’s transmission providers, Technicolor, meant that ITV1 HD’s coverage of the England v USA match was interrupted for approximately 20 seconds. ITV1’s standard definition coverage was unaffected.”
The broadcaster investigated immediately and it discovered that human error was to blame for the incident. It met with Technicolor yesterday morning, where strong words were exchanged and measures were put in place to prevent a similar mistake.
Will Berryman, senior vice president operations - digital content delivery at Technicolor, said: “Technicolor deeply regrets this incident and its impact on ITV and its viewers. Investigations are continuing as a matter of the utmost urgency in order to ensure that the issues are addressed with immediate effects.”
Despite the apology, England fans were up in arms. “ITV should not be allowed to broadcast any live football event,” said one viewer on an itv.com forum.
Another added: “Adrian Chiles [said England’s performance was] ‘the usual mix of hope and horror’. Sums up ITV’s coverage quite nicely I think.”
It is not the first time football fans have been left fuming by an error in ITV’s live football coverage. Millions had watched the dramatic Everton v Liverpool FA Cup match last year for nearly two goalless hours when the broadcast in some areas switched to a commercial for Tic Tacs - missing 19-year-old Dan Gosling’s 118th minute goal for Everton.
More than 1,000 fans complained about the incident and the then chairman Michael Grade said the “glitch” was “inexcusable”.
Viewers have also complained about ITV’s online World Cup coverage after some were locked out of the live stream of the tournament’s opening game between South Africa and Mexico. Others have been frustrated by slow loading pages and streams buffering continuously.
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/b...e?referrer=RSS
The 'sabotage has not been ruled out' line may have been pulled from the online edition but it still made it into print,it's on page 83.
Originally Posted by Jaycee Dove:
“The posts yesterday from TV experts seemed pretty conclusive that deliberate sabotage was not possible due to there being no real delay (ie, if I understood rightly, the delay being post encoding and transmission).
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.
Yet the Mail claim ITV chiefs called the timing of the incident 'remarkably coincidental' (as it obviously was as this has occurred just twice in a year and both coincided exactly with the key 20 seconds of the match - with odds of millions to one against that).
So if it was indeed simply by chance it was with high odds against.
They also add the comment ''sabotage has not been ruled out' and it is presented as a quote from ITV.
So I would like to see the reaction to this from those whose posts last night appeared to logically refute the possibility (beyond suggesting a Derren Brown style prescient saboteur).
Are the Mail misquoting ITV here or is there a way this might have happened?”
“The posts yesterday from TV experts seemed pretty conclusive that deliberate sabotage was not possible due to there being no real delay (ie, if I understood rightly, the delay being post encoding and transmission).
So why are the Mail saying not just that they are theorising that the loss of the goal was deliberate but that ITV are taking that seriously also. They have to know if it is not possible.
Yet the Mail claim ITV chiefs called the timing of the incident 'remarkably coincidental' (as it obviously was as this has occurred just twice in a year and both coincided exactly with the key 20 seconds of the match - with odds of millions to one against that).
So if it was indeed simply by chance it was with high odds against.
They also add the comment ''sabotage has not been ruled out' and it is presented as a quote from ITV.
So I would like to see the reaction to this from those whose posts last night appeared to logically refute the possibility (beyond suggesting a Derren Brown style prescient saboteur).
Are the Mail misquoting ITV here or is there a way this might have happened?”
Although the 'experts' will tell you that nothing can happen post encode, consider that additional data (Conditional Access Systems for example) has to be added to the streams by each broadcaster prior to distribution over their respective networks, meaning additional equipment in the line..(with the exception of free platforms)
Now I'm not saying this was a deliberate act here, but while avenues exist post encode (where you're waiting for the encoder to output the stream) speculation will exist, most especially in our media
51 of 54
