Sign in / up

back to article BBC's 3D blunder BLASTED OUR BRAINS – Doctor Who fans

Does the BBC still dislike Doctor Who the way it did back in the 1980s? Its presentation on iPlayer of this past Saturday’s 50th anniversary special, Day of the Doctor, suggests it might do. The 3D version is giving us headaches and eye-strain, allege eager Whovians. The format chosen for streaming the show in a form suitable …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Test Man

    Looks like they added the DOG for the encoding of the video file for iPlayer, not during the production of the 3D video. I think the DOG is always added at the end of the process (when producing the video file for use on iPlayer) as BBC ONE and TWO broadcast don't have DOGs so clearly it's not added in during production.

    Unfortunately, they have failed to realise that adding it in at the end of the process isn't going to work for 3D videos. They should either modify their end-of-process iPlayer output for 3D videos or add it in during production (the latter probably is not going to work seeing as they will use this for generating various file formats for various outputs).

    So it's simply a procedural error.

    1 0
  2. Wize

    Ditch the DOG

    I've disliked the DOG from the moment it arrived on mainstream TV.

    If I want to know what channel I am watching, a simple press of the remote will tell me, rather than being constantly reminded of it.

    And now we are using digital everywhere, even our recordings on Sky/DVRs/etc can tell you what channel it was recorded on.

    DOGs also cause a problem. They can burn in to the screen, as the BBC knows after having to replace some plasma screens at it's own HQ many years ago.

    14 0
    1. teebie
      Reply Icon

      Re: Ditch the DOG

      I agree, one of my saddest googles was the one that told me "no, there is no way to get rid of this symbol"

      (I don't google many sad things)

      1 0
    2. John G Imrie
      Reply Icon

      Re: Ditch the DOG

      Dogs aren't there to remind the viewer which channel they are watching, they are there to spot when a rival TV station is ripping of your feed.

      There was a documentary about Al Jazeera filmed during one of the Gulf conflicts in which a US network got hold of the live feed and passed if of as their own. The documentary filmed a phone conversation that went like ...

      Why are you using our feed.

      Don't lie to me you bastard I can see our logo on the screen.

      The Al Jazeera teckies then through in an encryption layer on the feed and watched the US network broadcast the encrypted feed for a few seconds.

      3 0
      1. TRT Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Ditch the DOG

        Viva is one of the most intrusive. Pint of Lager is almost unwatchable.

        0 0
        1. sabroni Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Coat

          Re: Pint of Lager is almost unwatchable.

          Indeed, and that logo gets in the way as well!

          2 0
          1. DiViDeD
            Reply Icon

            Re: Pint of Lager is almost unwatchable.

            You should try the DOGs downunder. They bounce, they wiggle, they transmogrify into 'Next on 7 - A programme you wouldn't watch with a gun to your head' adverts. They are about as intrusive as they can get. Oh, and they switch corners every so often, just so they can be certain of being directly in front of the important plot reveal at the critical moment.

            It's like the CBeebies logo on acid.

            Together with the quarter screen advertising banners at the bottom of the screen and the current race to get more ads than programme into the average hour, terrestrial broadcast tv in Oz is unwatchanle, even on PVR.

            And that's before you get to the 'HD' broadcasting. In Australia, I believe we are the only country where the broadcasters get to count 576 line broadcasts as part of their HD output

            3 0
            1. poopypants
              Reply Icon

              @DiViDeD (Re: Pint of Lager is almost unwatchable.)

              The Doctor Who 50th anniversary broadcast was the first time I have watched Australian TV in over a year.

              I don't expect to be around for the 100th, but that's OK because Australian TV won't be around either.

              2 0
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

    I mean, i's not as if I am unaware of the station I tuned to. But, there again, I might have a really advanced set with some kind of guide that tells me what I'm tuned to. <checks> Nope, every other set I've seen does the same (or better)

    So; why the need for an on-screen logo in the first place?

    5 0
    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

      Two reasons

      1) so that the like of the RIAA/MPAA/etc/etc/etc can see what broadcasters stream/broadcast was priated/torrented illegally.

      2) To keep the TV execs reminded that they should ONLY be watching their channel and not anyone elses.

      Frankly, on a lot of shows they really get in the way of the action. But, after a while you tune them out.

      0 0
      1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

        1) doesn't compute: A watermark/ID could be buried unobtrusively in the datastream or in the image. it doesn't have to be distracting.

        2) TV execs can READ?

        3 0
        1. Anonymous Custard
          Reply Icon

          Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

          Presumably the watermark if buried in the stream would be lost if any kind of screengrab/capture was used to "record" the programme, thus coverting it to a brand new file and also in the process removing any kind of DRM or other such restrictions.

          They would probably argue that where it is is the least distracting position I guess. One thing though that is more irritating is those channels (not usually BBC ones I have to say) who have animated DOGs, either continuously or normally static with occasional bouts of movement. Those are really distracting and can even end up requiring a strategically stuck post-it note so the programme around it is more watchable.

          3 0
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

            You can watermark without needing DOG's. Trust me, it's been going on for years. Little boxes sit in the broadcast stream and can add watermarking that is undetectable. I was involved in a trial for this 8 or 9 years ago with a major broadcaster and have no doubt it has become far more sophisticated since.

            DOG's had their use in the early days of analogue satellite when the box had no other way of displaying a channel other than a number. But execs liked them and so as OSD's were developed for the boxes, the DOG"s remained.

            The BBC tried DOG's for 1 and 2 on digital years ago and had to back down. So now they are slipping them in via the back door for the HD channels.

            1 1
            1. jaywin
              Reply Icon

              Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

              > You can watermark without needing DOG's. Trust me, it's been going on for years. Little boxes sit in the broadcast stream and can add watermarking that is undetectable. I was involved in a trial for this 8 or 9 years ago with a major broadcaster and have no doubt it has become far more sophisticated since.

              And yet they still persist in putting cue dots into the active picture area, because it's the only signal guaranteed to pass through all the processing...

              2 1
              1. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

                Why someone has downvoted you for posting a verifiable fact about cue dots lord only knows. Obviously doesn't know what a cue dot is or why they are in vision!

                0 0
    2. I Should Cocoa!
      Reply Icon

      Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

      Indeed. There are channels I delete because the logo is so intrusive, and, basically because I'm insulted that they think I don't care.And then there are the ads for what's on next - deliberately distracting the viewer during the exposition. And Pick TV, i.e. Sky Free having 'Sci Fi Week on Pick TV' or similar in the top left throughout the entire episode.

      Or ad breaks at inappropriate moments, almost as if commercial channels aren't interested in broadcasting, only in the advertising revenue...

      1 0
      1. Wize
        Reply Icon

        Re: I've never understood the need for on-screen logos

        The 'next up' are very annoying. The BBC have already had complaints over a two part Dr Who story where a cartoon image of Graham Norton popped up just at a dramatic point of the episode spoiling the fact we were being left on a cliff hanger.

        0 0
  4. Rob E

    3D still being filmed using 2D methods?

    That screengrab is a perfect example of why I don't like 3D in it's current form, and no wonder it gives people headaches.

    TV/Film directors have been so used to forcing people to focus on what they want you to look at by using depth of field, making the stuff they want you to see pin-sharp, and everything else out of focus. This is all well and good in 2D, but they use the same techniques on 3D.

    The idea of 3D is it lets your own eyes do the focusing, so you can instinctively appreciate that not everything is the same distance away.

    So if I wanted to look at that woman in the background I should be able to do so. But no matter how much I tried straining my eyes, she would never come into focus!

    No wonder it puts people off when part of the picture seems to be 3d (the bit they want you to look at) and the rest of it is not - it definitely messes it up for me. The technology, (having to wear glasses) and the filming techniques (as above) are still not there yet.

    5 5
    1. Law
      Reply Icon

      Re: 3D still being filmed using 2D methods?

      "The idea of 3D is it lets your own eyes do the focusing"

      No... the whole point of 3D TV is to add a 3rd dimension... depth.

      You're thinking of a hologram or some nifty Galafrayan Art (or stasis pictures) tech.

      0 1
      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: 3D still being filmed using 2D methods?

        Nevertheless the illusion of depth is shattered by blurring things in the background, it makes it very clear that what you're seeing is an illusion of 3D. The Dredd film ruined a couple of shots with exact issue, looks fine in 2d but at the cinema in 3d they looked crap.

        1 0
        1. Law
          Reply Icon

          Re: 3D still being filmed using 2D methods?

          I get what you're saying, the use of blurred foreground debris flying in front of a scene is very annoying in some films as your reaction is to look at it... And since you can't focus on it the stuff rips you out of the moment. I was just saying the point of 3D film wasn't to have an all-in-focus experience... Just to add depth... Hence the 3rd dimension atop of X and Y.

          There are techniques with post and at capture processing to mimic all focused video, but film makers like to direct your gaze to the story and I'm guessing it'd be very expensive.

          There are some major crimes against cinema with poorly done 3D films, but doesn't make them all bad.

          To the downvoter, you could at least reply with your theory on what the 3rd D is.

          0 0
    2. MrXavia
      Reply Icon
      Facepalm

      Re: 3D still being filmed using 2D methods?

      Focus is the point, you cannot (baring some very expensive equipment) film something and have it ALL in focus... you could not just re-focus your eyes on something else because there is no more data to focus on, AND it is all at the same distance, the screen, and hence it is at the same focal point....

      0 0
  5. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse
    Stop

    RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

    Sorry... but what "lack of ads" is that then?

    You've obviously missed the endless self promotion in between TV and Radio shows telling you just how much it is "your BBC", for BBC news, BBC radio, BBC local and other minority channels; ads generally for how wonderful the whole organisation is - as well as the ads for re-runs of shows that were first shown years and years ago and are still shown due to lack of original or creative content @ your current BBC; or at the very least should be hived off to a "BBC Classics" channel rather than sold for more profit to Dave or UK Gold.

    I guess you've also missed the incestuous and increasing habit that the BBC has of "interviewing" the hosts of other BBC shows and trying to pass of these halfwits as legitimate public service content?

    I haven't missed this tedious self promotion - and that's why I choose to not pay for a licence to watch TV at the time it is broadcast.

    8 9
    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

      There is a world of different (IMHO) between advertising content on that and other channels to Commercial Product Advertising, eg Fairy Snow, Volkswagen, Jaguar, M&S, John Lewis, etc etc etc

      There again, I'm at an age where any prolonged/repeated product advertising is more likely to make me buy a rivals product. (a.k.a Grumpy old man)

      4 1
      1. Ian 55
        Reply Icon

        Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

        When 'hour long' US programmes on Sky are 40 to 45 minutes long on the BBC, you know just how much of a bargain the licence fee is.

        12 0
        1. Gene Cash Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

          > When 'hour long' US programmes on Sky are 40 to 45 minutes long on the BBC, you know just how much

          > of a bargain the licence fee is.

          Or vice-versa, when Top Gear on BBC America is an hour and a half...

          0 0
        2. graeme leggett Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

          "US programmes on Sky are 40 to 45 minutes long on the BBC"

          You can get the same effect by watching a BBC programme on Dave. You see that a certain Top Gear episode which you enjoyed in the original run is on, tune in and then wonder why there are jumps in the cuts across the studio and the "news" segment is missing.

          0 0
    2. Wize
      Reply Icon

      Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

      "You've obviously missed the endless self promotion in between TV and Radio shows..."

      But they don't come on during the program. They don't stop in the middle of Eastenders for a 5 minute bit of self promotion. They don't interrupt films every 15 minutes.

      8 1
      1. teebie
        Reply Icon

        Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

        Also, I've never seen "I'm Barry Scott! And I'm hear to tell you about Who Do you Think You Are!"

        3 0
      2. King Jack
        Reply Icon
        Facepalm

        Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

        But the ads do make all BBC programs start about 2 minutes after the advertised time. They should be fined for false.. er, advertising. Wait I thought they didn't advertise?

        2 5
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

      "or at the very least should be hived off to a "BBC Classics" channel rather than sold for more profit to Dave or UK Gold."

      Dave, GOLD and the rest of UKTV are basically BBC repeat channels.

      Used to be broadcast from Broadcasting House, at one point more commercial TV was broadcast than BBC channels..

      1 0
    4. Andy 12
      Reply Icon

      Re: RE: The lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling

      for me it is not the self promotion / ads between programmes, it is the stopping of a programme in mid flow in order to display 5 minutes of sdvertising, that is what I cannot stand. I personally believe that TV advertising has contributed to the inability for people to concentrate for more than 10 minutes or so at a time.

      0 0
  6. eJ2095

    So

    As we all should be digital by now

    Why cant they make the beeb subscription only....

    Oh wait will cost them too much in lost revenue..

    2 2
  7. David Nash Silver badge

    Re: Better publicity

    I agree totally. They say there is not enough demand but I have never seen a bbc promo for 3d content (well maybe the olympics, I can't remember). I had to search online to find out what channel they were using for the Doctor Who 3D (now that BBC HD has been renamed to BBC2 HD. Aside: Can we have BBC4 HD please?)

    I watched wimbledon a year ago in 3d after hearing about it by word of mouth.

    How do they know people don't want it if they don't publicise it properly? The olympics and wimbledon were great in 3D. I would love more BBC 3D content.

    2 0
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The 3d version will be available on the iplayer until December....

    ...and for a lot longer in more convenient formats from other sites that media companies would prefer you not to use.

    1 0
  9. xeroks

    Logo OG

    Watched the 3d version on iplayer, complete with one-eyed logo.

    It WAS a bit annoying, but I was able to tune it out after a while. More annoying was the flicker - there was a lot more than I'm used to with blu-rays. Don't know if the refresh rate was lower or something.

    I struggled to actually watch the thing in 3D, despite having all the required tech. I was out at the weekend. I eventually found an obscure blog posted on the Friday suggesting how to record from Sky using the red button channel. Not useful to me as was away by then.

    For some reason my (not as smart as they'd like to think) TV wasn't able to work out that it's own built in iPlayer app was trying to display some 3D content. Luckily my Blu-ray player also can talk to the internet, and I'd got iPlayer fired up on that I was able to get properly cross-eyed.

    Perhaps all these things might suggest why few people have been watching BBC in 3D?

    Oh yes, and the whole helicopter over London sequence. That was a bit pointless. I've since watched the episode in 2D, and can confirm that the helicopter shots looked better in 3D. But it didn't add anything to the plot, and wasn't really all that funny.

    The paintings worked much better in 3D than 2D, and they were intrinsic to the plot, so thumbs up for them. As did the battle scenes, despite the non-movie-budget FX.

    0 0
    1. Lamont Cranston
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      Re: Logo OG

      Thanks for posting this. I couldn't answer the "why have they picked up the TARDIS with a helicopter, and why can't the Doctor just teleport them away from it?" question over the weekend - now I can!

      2 0
  10. Magnus_Pym

    you think you've seen advertising ....

    ... You know those funny pauses or when the series ident' appears for no apparent reason. You know the ones that pop up every five minutes. They are the original US advert breaks. TThose in the UK and have Tivo type facilities at least can approximate the experience of US or Australian TV by pause the program for 5 minutes every 5 minutes of viewing time and play the same Cillet Bang advert over and over again in the space. That will give you some idea of what TV would be like in world where there is no national subscription based quality TV service to compare and compete with.

    1 1
  11. Darryl

    Quit yer whining

    At least you don't have the 'worst of both worlds' approach that is the CBC (C being Canadian) where, instead of a fee, the government just gives them $1.1 Billion per year from our taxes, plus they still run advertisements in numbers that rival the competing privately owned networks. Then they use the $1.1bn bonus to fund competing against the 'regular' networks for big ticket items like the Olympics.

    And after all that, the programming is, for the most part, horrible.

    0 0
  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Annoying promotions

    If you think the Beeb's promotion of it's own content (TV and Radio) is bad (and it is a bit annoying), you should check out channels like Drama (where I've recently been watching re-runs of The Bill!). EVERY ad break includes the same trailer for the some up and coming series, annoying to the point where I wouldn't watch the friggin' programme being trailed - even if I liked it - simply on principle!

    Thankfully when you record the programmes you can mostly skip through these.

    0 0
    1. Mark Morgan
      Reply Icon

      Re: Annoying promotions

      I can't remember which channel it is that does it but there's a couple that regularly put adverts for the next episode of the programme you are watching in the ad breaks within the programme which can end up being huge plot spoilers for the current episode!

      0 0
  13. Spoonsinger

    Actually, story and execution wise, it was pretty horrible in 2D anyway, however...

    Tom Baker's voice, (before he appeared), did give a bit of a old school buzz.- so not a total waste of time.

    0 0
  14. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    3D sux

    Every 3D TV I've tried has given me a headache and some made me nauseous too. Waste of time and money IMHO, as is all this higher and higher resolution kick that the manufacturers seem to be on. For most living rooms 1080p is more than adequate up to 50 inch screens. Yes, maybe 4k is better on larger screens but here in the United Kingdom of Tiny Houses you would need to sit in your garden to be able to see all of the screen. Me I'm quite happy with my 32" LED backlit LCD.

    1 0
  15. MJI Silver badge

    DOGS

    Time to reintroduce the death penalty for marketing executives who think it is a good idea.

    "Hello (name of broacaster) there is a shitty logo on the screen!"

    "Tough sir marketing twonk wants it."

    "OK."

    "Hello is that the DOG killer?"

    "Yes - Mr Marketing Twonk."

    "Ah yes we know, will be live on the news next Thurday."

    "What will?"

    "His hanging."

    0 0
  16. pcbbc

    Fixed

    The Beeb have fixed the 3D iPlayer stream to be totally Dog free!

    Thanks to El Reg for covering the story for me. As I'm fairly sure that's what got their attention. :D

    1 0
    1. handle
      Reply Icon

      Re: Fixed

      Good. I await the update, and the withdrawal of such a head-scratchingly bizarre attempt at Beeb-bashing. Surely there are far easier targets to pick on? Or was it just calculated that nothing attracts the eyeballs like combining both sides of this site's schizophrenic attitude towards the BBC - everything about it is awful, but, erm, Dr Who is great - into one article?

      0 0
    2. Test Man
      Reply Icon

      Re: Fixed

      Knew it wouldn't be hard - when doing the last procedure of encoding the final video for streaming they simply turned off the use of the DOG.

      0 0
      1. pcbbc
        Reply Icon

        Re: Fixed

        Yes - No not hard. The difficult part is getting the attention of the correct people at the Beeb so it CAN be fixed! I originally reported the problem to the iPlayer team on Sunday morning, and as it still wasn't fixed by Tuesday I reported it to El Reg as well...

        As well as removing the DOG, it is also available in much higher quality this time. It looks absolutely stunning now - almost as good as the cinema!

        I too wish posters could all stop with the Beeb bashing. This isn't a question of "Should we pay a licence fee?" or "Should the BBC make 3D, given the low demand?". The point is they HAVE made it and licence fee payers have PAID for it. It should therefore be presented technically correctly so as to be viewable by as wide an audience as possible.

        0 0
  17. MrXavia

    The 3d version was great to watch on the TV, but this is true, you can't watch the iPlayer version because of this blunder by the BBC. all it will do is push people away from iPlayer to the torrents to get it if they missed the 3d broadcast or just want to watch it again.

    0 0

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like