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

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jai

    simple solution

    watch the non-3D version on iPlayer instead then

    1. Spiracle

      Re: simple solution

      Watch it twice, once with each eye.

      1. billat29

        Re: simple solution

        Tipp-Ex the DOG on the screen (other correction fluids available)

    2. Benchops

      Re: watch the non-3D version

      Judging the plot I'd say the normal version is at least 4D

  2. sabroni Silver badge

    Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

    Of course the BBC shouldn't waste money on popular shows just because licence payers like them. How will the plebs ever learn if you give them what they want?

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

      The eternal BBC conundrum: give the plebs what they want and the snobs complain Auntie is dumbing down and the commercial channels squeal about their revenues and the Beeb's unfair competition. But don't give viewers telly they enjoy, and nobody sees the point of paying the licence fee.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

        They have all these channels don't they, perhaps they could supply different viewer groups suitable programmes on different channels?

        I enjoyed watching that Jim Al-Khalili last night, absolute science and equation pr0n!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

          >They have all these channels don't they, perhaps they could supply different viewer groups suitable programmes on different channels?

          The trouble is then that you end up preaching to the choir, leaving those most in need of a little edification to watch BBC3. BBC4 ends up being defined by viewer group taste, rather than their native wit- so that's any science show that isn't presented by a member of Top Gear, Scandanavian drama, and Classsic British Rock biopics at the weekend.

          1. teebie

            Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

            "leaving those most in need of a little edification to watch BBC3"

            I initially read that as "most in need of a little education", then corrected myself, then got to the "watch BBC3" part and realised I was sort of right first time

            1. Dave 126 Silver badge

              Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

              Exactly: when first launched, BBC3 was billed as comedy for a general audience. However, it has evolved to become their 'yoof' channel, complete with 'yoof' orientated comedies and documentaries about STDs.

              That's what Channel 4 used to be for, back in those happy days before Big Brother!

              The idea of a general audience has died - though to be fair, much of that is beyond the BBC's control (multiple channels via satellite, cable or Freeview , and more screens in each household to watch things on, such as computers and tablets).

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

            "The trouble is then that you end up preaching to the choir"

            Dont mention the Choir. That bloody irritating, ginger bearded, tosser will appear here trying to recurit an 'el reg' choral group. Never have I encountered a person on TV I want to punch repeatedly in the face as much as him.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

              Jamie Oliver and Derren Brown are both more irritating, but I understand where you're coming from.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

          >perhaps they could supply different viewer groups suitable programmes on different channels?

          That wouldn't take advantage of new technology.

          Why don't they use 3D to supply different shows to different eyes?

          That way your right brain could get Melvin Bragg while your left brain gets Trinny and Sue Bake Swap Makeover challenge

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Like, ahem, cooking pr0n and talent shows.

        "The eternal BBC conundrum: give the plebs what they want and the snobs complain Auntie is dumbing down [but] don't give viewers telly they enjoy, and nobody sees the point of paying the licence fee."

        I'd say it's as much the anti-license-fee zealots that seem to enjoy having it both ways with "damned if they do" and "damned if they don't" to suit the current angle of attack (though not both at the same time, as the disingenuousness would be too obvious.) They can't lose!

  3. Moonshine
    Thumb Up

    Stick a Post-It note (or some other sticking thing) over the D.O.G. Post-It will appear in both eyes. Problem solved.

  4. Tim Parker

    "Whatever it really thinks about Doctor Who, the BBC certainly isn’t keen on 3D."

    That's because people aren't watching it - the Beeb often gets slated for wasting money, and rightfully so, but to make snide sounding comments when it actually employs common sense is a bit much.

    "The transmission ... is the Corporation’s final 3D broadcast for the time being"

    Yeah - I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if eight or nine voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

    1. henshaw11

      Better publicity ?

      Part of the reason that the beeb may not be finding much uptake of the 3D service is 'cos they just don't seem to publicise it, from what I can tell. Since I seem to watch most things recorded via the PVR nowadays I *might* have missed related plugs,, but then we have the Radio Times and I'm pretty sure there's little mention of 3D transmissions there either.

      Other than Dr Who and the olympics I really don't recall anything being shown in 3D - and that was squirreled away via the red button, which isn't normally (or certainly wasn't a while back) appearing on schedules.

      (in the event that I've missed something, I'm sure there'll be someone along shortly to correct me..)

  5. WonkoTheSane
    Headmaster

    Wait a week

    The logo won't be on the 3D Bluray.

    "Whatever it really thinks about Doctor Who, the BBC certainly isn’t keen on 3D."

    Since they decline to inform viewers how to find the 3D programs, viewing figures will of course justify cancellation of their efforts.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wait a week

      "Since they decline to inform viewers how to find the 3D programs, viewing figures will of course justify cancellation of their efforts."

      Leaving the merits of 3D aside, this is absolutely classic BBC Programme Planning Dept tactics. Back in the old days, they clearly wanted rid of the classic Mastermind, with Magnus. Solution? Move from sunday nights, to monday at 19:30, up against the then behemoth that was Corrie. Result? Viewing figures plunge. Then they sharpen the axe. Just one example, they do it all the time.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wait a week

        "Back in the old days, they clearly wanted rid of the classic Mastermind. Solution? Move [to] monday at 19:30, up against the then behemoth that was Corrie."

        Ironically, this is exactly what they did with Doctor Who in the late 80s, shortly before its cancellation- they put it directly against Coronation Street.

        People have wised up to this, however. Even almost a decade back, Top of the Pops' move to Sunday evenings on BBC2 was widely seen as a deliberate attempt to sideline the ailing show prior to cancellation- which of course did happen a couple of years later.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wait a week

        That's a practice they first tried with Doctor Who. Ironically the series got the best ratings that any show had got against Corrie for years, so for 1989 the Beeb made sure they held no press launch and did no pre-publicity. It worked. Ratings were down and despite ratings reviving after the producer held his own press call it was justification enough that the series was considered dead.

  6. BlinkenLights

    It sounds like the author of this story is another anti BBC troll. It was a technical error nothing more. I watched the 3D broadcast on a Sky box and no issues with that.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Tax" - really?

    Licence fee, "tax", whatever. If you really want something to complain about abolish the fee make the BBC take advertising. Save money and be much worse off.

    Personally, £140/year is worth it for any of Radio 4, 6 Music and iPlayer.

    YMMV.

    1. Toxteth O'Gravy

      Re: "Tax" - really?

      iPlayer is free and doesn't require a tax payment if you promise not to watch live streams.

      I only pay the licence fee because I have to. If it goes, I'll buy Doctor Who on disc - I do anyway. I've given up on Radio 4 and will only go back if they promise to consult a dictionary and learn what the word 'comedy' actually means.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Tax" - really?

        YMMV - not least because none of the things you mentioned require paying the license fee! You can pretend that you are being a good citizen doing your part, but chances are your cash is just going on threatening letters, in a rainbow of exciting shades of pay-up-or-go-to-court-Red, to students and dead grandmothers.

        1. smcw

          Re: "Tax" - really?

          re cash wasted on threatening letters.

          I totally agree with you there. For short while I had house empty waiting to be sold so I cancelled license payment. Soon after I got threatening letter. Not a letter asking me to confirm whether or not someone lived there or if there was a TV there. No they went straight in first letter to threats of legal action.

          It appears the BBC start with the assumption that everyone is a criminal and every premise without a license is a crime scene.

          Personally I wouldn't be too upset if the bbc itself was scrapped along with the license fee.

          1. Dave 126 Silver badge

            Re: "Tax" - really?

            It seems that most people who are anti-BBC have never had the misfortune to watch US networked TV, or else are a competing news outlet with a right-ring bias (i.e, the Murdoch press, the Daily Telegraph etc).

            That said, the BBC could do better, especially in drama. Compare 'Spooks' to 'The Wire', for example.

            An informed and entertaining talk about the commissioning of quality shows - on both sides of the Atlantic - is here:

            Armando Iannucci: BAFTA Television Lecture 2012

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmViA8zRhLI

            1. Paul Wells

              Re: "Tax" - really?

              Yes, "The Wire" was very good, but is it really fair to pick it as a program to hold up as a target for the BBC without mentioning the huge amount of low quality that's broadcast at the same time?

              And there should be some financial measurements included - to get HBO would be another $15-20 on top of the cable charge

          2. Miek
            Linux

            Re: "Tax" - really?

            "Soon after I got threatening letter. Not a letter asking me to confirm whether or not someone lived there or if there was a TV there. No they went straight in first letter to threats of legal action." -- Ignore the letters, eventually they get bored and they stop sending them.

            1. Steve Foster

              @Miek

              "Ignore the letters, eventually they get bored and they stop sending them."

              Do they?

              Some 5 years after getting rid of my television, I'm still receiving periodic "you're a crim & we're gonna 'ave you" missives from Crapita on behalf of the BBC.

      2. Chris 3

        Re: "Tax" - really?

        Sounds like you need to tune into Radio 4Extra, you can get all the broadcasts of The Navy Lark, Round The Horn and The Men From The Ministry you desire.,

        1. DiViDeD

          Re: "Tax" - really?

          Ho Boy!

          I listened to Radio 4Extra for the first time a month or so back (streamed - Australia is just outside the BBC's broadcast footprint. Have applied for planning permission for a 2,700 Km aerial, we'll see what happens) and it was Round The Horne. Since then I've rediscovered ISIRTA (Radio prune), The Navy lark, Men From the Ministry and a host of others. last time I listened to this stuff was as a kid, so most of it washed over me and I never really understood just how close to the knuckle those shows went.

          I remember as a teenager listening to Radio Active and thinking how edgy and controversial our modern comedies were (remember Anna Dapter, Uncle Mike Stand, Mike Flex and Mike Hunt?) compared to the stuffy old things my parents had listened to, so hearing them again and understanding more of what they are saying made me realise how clever those guys were (singlet-a little sing, goblet-a little mouth).

          I don't pay the licence fee anymore, as an expat, but with a broadcast tv dominated by unfunny US 'comedies', simpering arselicking of people who are considered 'World Famous Celebrities' because they've been on Australian tv for the last thousand years, and sport, sport, sport, I sometimes wish to doG the BBC would open up a studio in Sydney.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: I sometimes wish to doG the BBC would open up a studio in Sydney.

            As part of the deal over Scottish independence I think we get Australia back, so it could happen.

      3. Roj Blake Silver badge

        Re: "Tax" - really?

        A new series of That Mitchell & Webb Sound started last night. It was the funniest thing I've heard in ages. And I defy anyone not to laugh at least once during an episode of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, even though all of the jokes are at least forty years old.

      4. Andy 12

        Re: "Tax" - really?

        I love the fact that there is no adverts on the BBC and happily pay the licence fee - much much cheaper than sky which has loads of adverts as well as the monthly subscription cost. For programmes on the non BBC channels I either record them and then watch later FWDing through the ads, or I buy the BD boxsets of the series. COmmercial radio, I don't listen to, I listen to BBC radio. I can't help it, I simply hate advertisments.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Tax" - really?

      To those purporting that advertising funded TV is somehow "fair". Have you actually thought that one through?

      1) How much is the annual revenue from TV advertising in the UK?

      2) from where does that money - ultimately - come?

      3) How many households are there in the UK?

      4) IIRC, the answer to 1) divided by 3) is about £160 - totally irrespective of whether the household even has a TV or not!

    3. Lamont Cranston
      Joke

      Re: "Tax" - really?

      No need to pay the oppressive BBC tax - iPlayer, Radio 4 and 6Music are funded by pixies! Apparently.

  8. FunkyEric

    Well thanks El Reg, this was the first time I'd heard it was available in 3D. I had seen the beeb plugging it endlessly, but no mention of 3Dability. I shall look forward to watching that when I get home on my 3D TV :-) (missed it at the weekend first time round due to freezing my ass of in a foreign country and being at a friends for dinner when it was on)

  9. Ben Rose

    Cooking etc.

    I thought of a simple fix for the BBC license fee argument a little while ago.

    Clearly it's difficult to please everybody, there will always be some who argue that they don't want "their" licence fee money going towards a show they don't like. e.g. I think we spend far too much money on Masterchef.

    If a show is popular, as indeed the cooking and baking shows appear to be, they should have a limited run on the BBC. Perhaps 2 or, at most, 3 series. After that, the BBC should be contractually obliged to sell it off to the highest bidder.

    This indirectly happened with Jonathan Ross when he left the Beeb for unrelated reasons. His chat show is now on ITV, with the same bad jokes. License payers are no longer paying Ross's inflated wages.

    Shows like Masterchef, Apprentice, Top Gear, Bake off and Eastenders would all be gone to another terrestrial broadcaster. It happens with sport, why not drama and reality?

    The funds received from selling off the successful shows could go towards paying for new television to replace it.

    Most of these shows are now "made by xyz for BBC" so there is no reason quality should drop as a result of it changing channel. We'd just start saving money.

    1. jaywin

      Re: Cooking etc.

      > We'd just start saving money.

      Is it cheaper to keep building new production teams to come up with new ideas than it is to continue to make episodes of older ideas which can then be sold internationally?

      1. Ben Rose

        Re: Cooking etc.

        "Is it cheaper to keep building new production teams to come up with new ideas than it is to continue to make episodes of older ideas which can then be sold internationally?"

        If the shows can be sold internationally, then the rights to them would have considerable value if sold.

        Building new productions teams to come up with new ideas isn't cheap, that's why we pay the license fee, right?

    2. Lamont Cranston
      Thumb Down

      Re: Cooking etc.

      Yes, that's great - use the BBC as a proving ground for Sky.

      Most of what I watch is on 4 or five, and they're always under the threat of their programming disappearing off to satellite (I quite enjoyed the first few series of House, for example).

      1. Ben Rose

        Re: Cooking etc.

        No, not Sky...I said another terrestrial broadcaster. It would be important to keep the shows free to air.

    3. I Should Cocoa!

      Re: Cooking etc.

      'This indirectly happened with Jonathan Ross when he left the Beeb for unrelated reasons. His chat show is now on ITV, with the same bad jokes. License payers are no longer paying Ross's inflated wages.'

      Before Ross I never imagined you could make so much money from trying too hard.

    4. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Cooking etc.

      A lot of these shows make a profit

      Top Gear does

      Doctor WHo does

  10. returnmyjedi

    An interesting concept, but the lack of ads on the Beeb is still remarkably compelling. I know most of the time ads are just

    1. Ben Rose

      re:adverts

      I get your point regarding adverts on commercial channels but don't most people just skip through adverts on their PVR these days? What proportion of people still watch TV live?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yes stop wasting my licence fee money on 3DTV please Mr Beeb.

    Start wasting it on 4KTV instead immediately. Oh, you are already planning it? OK.

  12. Exscot

    Original DOG

    The DOG was originally developed to add Action Replay to the first slow motion System. The developers wanted to call it the Action Replay Symbol Equipment - unfortunately the management caught on!

  13. Tim Brown 1

    Unwanted tech

    I have a 3D-TV. I only bought it because the retailer was flogging them off cheap because hardly anyone wants 3D.

    The stereoscopic glasses are still in their wrapping.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

    1. teebie

      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)

    2. John G Imrie

      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.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Ditch the DOG

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

        1. sabroni Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Pint of Lager is almost unwatchable.

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

          1. DiViDeD

            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

            1. poopypants

              @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.

  16. 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?

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      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.

      1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

        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?

        1. Anonymous Custard

          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            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. jaywin

              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...

              1. Anonymous Coward
                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!

    2. I Should Cocoa!

      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. Wize

        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.

  17. 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.

    1. Law

      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.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        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. Law

          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.

    2. MrXavia
      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....

  18. 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.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      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)

      1. Ian 55

        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.

        1. Gene Cash Silver badge

          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...

        2. graeme leggett Silver badge

          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.

    2. Wize

      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.

      1. teebie

        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!"

      2. King Jack
        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?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      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..

    4. Andy 12

      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.

  19. 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..

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

    1. Lamont Cranston
      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!

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

    1. Mark Morgan

      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!

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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."

  29. 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. handle

      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?

    2. Test Man

      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.

      1. pcbbc

        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.

  30. 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.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  31. Stuart Halliday
    Facepalm

    Come Register, don't go all 'American' on us.

    Only USA fans are Whovians.

    1. handle

      Judging by the number of people on this thread who have talked about the "license fee" I think you're flogging a dead horse.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Could be they're using a browser that auto-corrects eg "google" is underlined in red as I write this, but "broswer" gets automatically corrected to "browser".

  32. AlexS
    Go

    They've fixed it

    Move on... nothing to see.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like