UKNM: Re: UKNM Digest V1 #776

[Tom]

Sorry to do this bit-by-bit, but:


>>>

Don't remember Tim talking about lowering production values. And if you read

the point you quoted above, Tom, he stated clearly that "web BROADCASTS are

at lower resolution than TV."

>>>

Correct, Ray. He wasn't. You were.


>>>

He was talking about the practice of

compressing video images for web broadcast - the fact that monitors produce

higher resolution images than 625-line TV screens makes no difference to

low-res, compressed web broadcast.

>>>

TV res is worse than PC monitor. Therefore, signal degradation due to the

display will be less on a monitor than a TV. Not quite sure of the point you

are making, though....


>>>

Why, oh why, do so many members of this list have to be so painfully

smart-arsed about technology? Why not contribute to the discussion instead

of just slagging other people off?

>>>

You are right. Why oh why oh why oh why oh WHY do so many members of this

list have to use reason and accuracy in any discussion? It is simply not

fair to talk about details from different perspectives, because it

highlights one's own deficiencies in these areas. Of course, we shouldn't

see this as an opportunity to gain insight into areas one may know nothing

about. It is clearly a personal slight on your individual character and MUST

BE STOPPED (Cue the "Ban it all!" lobby...)


>>>

The reason (my view, not necessarily Tim's) that you can produce and

distribute more and better quality and more creative commercial content for

web than tv is that the distribution cost using the web (open system owned

by hundreds of thousands) is minimal in comparison to TV (closed system

monopolised by the few) and production costs are much smaller, too, for the

equivalent level of quaility (differences in technology allowing).

>>>

Erm...not being a smart arse...er....how am I allowed to say it, then? Let's

try this:

No matter what is subsequently done in terms of manglement to a video

signal, poor quality source will always look much worse than high quality

source. As my original post said, you are (still) confusing means of

production with means of distribution.


>>>

And no, Tim, it's not about using the web to produce poor-man's TV, it's

about making the best use of web tools and benefits to make sparkling and

super-creative content that would not be possible on TV. I am not saying

this _is_ done, I am saying it _can be_ done, and I hope will be done, just

as soon as the web production business progresses beyond hanging from its

mother's breast.

>>>

If you are suggesting that the mother of "the web production business" is

TV, then you are again mistaken. And what on earth are the "web tools" that

will allow this "sparkling and super-creative content that would not be

possible on TV"?!?! And remember, Ray, don't you go getting technical on

us....


>>>

Let's get this point straight. If there was no TV and no Web and you had to

invent a broadcast system for live action, sound, graphics, text, etc., who

in their right mind in this day and age would specify a system that required

huge great iron monstrosities to be constructed every hundred kilometers to

distribute it, that had a maximum vertical resolution of 625 dots

(regardless of screen size), that could produce only a few k bytes of text

information, that sent it one way only, and which gave you a choice from

only five content suppliers?

>>>

Your utopia, sadly, does not exist. That is the fundamental flaw in your

ravings; you pay no heed to the reality of the situation.


>>>

If there is any justice in the world the web ought to be able to do a better

job of it. And before any other smart-arse tells me that the "bandwidth" of

the net is too narrow to be useful as a video broadcast system, bear this

one thing in mind. I have just had a bunch of telephone (invented c.100

years ago) lines put in to a new office. The heavily protected state

monopoly that provided this service chose to scrabble around in muddy holes

in the ground in order to place heavy copper (rare, expensive and

environmentally destructive to produce) cabling on a circuitous route into

the building, rather than use the glass (cheap, abundant,

environment-benign) fibre (practically unlimited bandwidth) that was

previously installed in the building by the said same bunch of protected

species. The point? We have the technology, but unfortunately it is in the

hands of a bunch of monkeys.

>>>

Ah-HA! So THERE'S the rub. You hate BT.


>>>

So, the choice is yours. Twenty-first century or twentieth.

I sometimes think this list should be renamed the UKTVA discussion group -

UK TV Apologists' discussion group.

>>>

If you can hold your head in indignant pose when all those around you say

you are misled, then you are indeed an Englishman.


>>

Anyone got anything good to say about the web today, or is _everyone_

reeling from investor uncertainty?

Ray Taylor

>>


Well, it certainly isn't you, is it Ray?!


Tom Dussek



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finding it impossible to trawl through mountains of irrelevant

information on the web? Trying but failing to reach a niche market?

Help is at hand with the launch this week of online advertising

marketplace ADictive.com - the solution to all your advertising needs.


      Visit http://www.adictive.com to find out more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com