Torchwood Comes To Ten

[ckent]

Good news this morning ... BBC HD's Torchwood is coming to Ten, after ABC rejected it.

I'm going to add 2 + 2 = 5 and guess that it is going to be on Ten HD.

If so, this will be the first 1080p video-HD show in Australia ... everything else

is shot on film-to-HD (or is 50i or 60i in a studio). Correct me if I'm wrong?

(This is the show where the second episode deals with the "sex-monster" aliens. Beaut stuff.)

Once you skip the ads, this should be better than the BBC broadcast for a couple of reasons:

- 1920x1080 not 1440x1080, unlike BBC HD

- no watermark, unlike BBC HD

- 25% higher bitrate may give slightly better detail despite the broadcast of MPEG-2 instead of MPEG-4 Part 10

(this gets a little subjective, and comes down to more low-motion detail vs less high-motion artefacts, etc)

Anyway I'll also be interested to see how Ten's promotion (and general target audience) goes with this.

I always thought they would get more ratings for Doctor Who if they had bought the series in 2005,

so it'll be interesting to see if Torchwood might even outrate its predecessor show.

Around episodes 8 and 9, things get really good ... but I recommend against watching them with

groups of friends, especially the sort who help you get through long boring episodes of Battlestar Galactica

by talking over it.

CK.

[djOS]

I Recomend using the Search function, had you bothered you would have found this thread from 5 days ago!

[dilligafocau]

Thanks for the info ckent.

[ckent]

I Recomend using the Search function, had you bothered you would have found this thread from 5 days ago!

What a n00b I must look like.

I mean, I come on here a few times a week an it's already fallen off the front page. I gotta find a way to increase the number of entries per page.

CK.

[djOS]

What a n00b I must look like.

I mean, I come on here a few times a week an it's already fallen off the front page. I gotta find a way to increase the number of entries per page.

CK.

Just use the "Search" function, it's more reliable.

[anthonysimilion]

I gotta find a way to increase the number of entries per page.

Go to 'My Controls', then 'Board Settings'. Change 'Number of topics to show for each forum page' to the number you desire.

[SimonB1503560073]

ckent, thanks from me (for one). I don't frequent that other forum, so I would never have known otherwise.

I have the first episode that I dl'd in 720p, just can't watch it as its too jerky on my PC. Was waiting for my NMP, but it's been delayed

Simon....

[Neon Kitten]

If so, this will be the first 1080p video-HD show in Australia ... everything else

is shot on film-to-HD (or is 50i or 60i in a studio). Correct me if I'm wrong?

You're wrong

"The L Word" is shot on HD video, as is "The Loop", to name two. Sadly they both air(ed) on Seven, so we didn't get to see them in full HD here.

Once you skip the ads, this should be better than the BBC broadcast for a couple of reasons:

- no watermark, unlike BBC HD

Nope, but plenty of BIGGEST LOSER pop-ups and NOW/NEXT popups. Not to mention commercial breaks where there aren't supposed to be any. And anyone who thinks Ten will air this without cutting it for time is fooling themselves. This is a show with episodes as long as 53 minutes.

[pheggie]

Funny they can let sports run over scheduled time but not a drama. I agree the in show promo banners

is ridiculous must be a Canadian thing. Ten seem the worst for this.

[ckent]

You're wrong

"The L Word" is shot on HD video, as is "The Loop", to name two. Sadly they both air(ed) on Seven, so we didn't get to see them in full HD here.

Bwhaha, I'll claim a virtual victory then. But, thanks for that info.

Nope, but plenty of BIGGEST LOSER pop-ups and NOW/NEXT popups. Not to mention commercial breaks where there aren't supposed to be any. And anyone who thinks Ten will air this without cutting it for time is fooling themselves. This is a show with episodes as long as 53 minutes.

Sssh, between you and me, watch Ten SD and Ten HD at the same time next time the credits roll or anything. I deeply appreciate everything the guys at Ten HD are doing.

As for the ads ... you've got me thinking. I believe I probably would choose ads over watermarks; but it's an intriguing question and worth starting a poll. I mean, my initial reaction is "at least you can remove the ads", but given the effort involved, it's actually true about watermarks too.

Still, I'd vote for ads over watermarks, for HD shows, based largely on how much the glowing billboard-size logo was intruding my enjoyment of "Planet Earth" last night.

(Heh, did I just say "ads over watermarks"? I guess my meaning is ambiguous, and I'd love watermarks during commercial breaks ... it's the only time I might not recognise the channel I'm watching. Seven and Nine have both dabbled with it when their logos were new or changed).

Nevertheless you bring up a valid point about how the show is meant to be seen. For instance, all classic Doctor Whos have, after the 1980s VHS releases, been recognised as needing to be seen with cliffhangers, titles/credits etc between episodes.

Now think about how they make Star Trek and a few other shows. They have mini cliffhangers just before each ad break. Do those intrude on the style of the show? Do they make them better? Or make no difference at all? So depending how you look at it, creating drama for 10-minute "acts" or "scenes" (ha, like Shakespeare?) may be entirely legitimate and even beneficial.

Or, conversely, just because a BBC show was made without mini cliffhangers doesn't make it necessarily worse. Possibly not so true for feature-length movies, but in a 45-minute drama (yes, Torchwood was made for less than an hour) then having sufficient rapid plot development makes it far less likely that it's going to be hard to cut it naturally in 4 or 5 places.

Of course, BBC classics like Fawlty Towers were made for exactly 30 minutes, and opinion keeps changing every decade whether that was a good thing or bad idea in the first place. The pendulum keeps swinging whether Cleese should have written for 22-24 minutes to get 1. maximum audience, 2. better coverage, 3. future compatibility ... or on the other hand, the arguments are: 1. more is better, 2. a show without ads is better, and 3. screw all commercial networks and let the BBC do whatever the hell it pleases, and other networks will have to make a 45-minute slot.

CK.

[tonygib]

Nevertheless you bring up a valid point about how the show is meant to be seen. For instance, all classic Doctor Whos have, after the 1980s VHS releases, been recognised as needing to be seen with cliffhangers, titles/credits etc between episodes.

Of course, how else should one watch Doctor Who

Now think about how they make Star Trek and a few other shows. They have mini cliffhangers just before each ad break. Do those intrude on the style of the show? Do they make them better? Or make no difference at all? So depending how you look at it, creating drama for 10-minute "acts" or "scenes" (ha, like Shakespeare?) may be entirely legitimate and even beneficial.

I've been watching some Star Trek lately (Season 2 DVD box set) and for the most part those "mini cliffhangers" are just silly, its like whenever the picture fades to black, all one can think is "Insert commercials here", it usually does nothing for the flow of the program.

And sure having a break just cut into a show by a commercial TV that just hits you like a brick is darn annoying, at least once you get it on DVD it all flows that much better.

On the subject of Torchwood, I don't hold out much hope, but I'll checkout the first broadcasts and compare to my half-res BBC HD versions to see what's been cut, etc.

[DrP]

Bwhaha, I'll claim a virtual victory then. But, thanks for that info.

Sssh, between you and me, watch Ten SD and Ten HD at the same time next time the credits roll or anything. I deeply appreciate everything the guys at Ten HD are doing.

I think you'll find its more a case of just not spending the money to set up HD with all the ads and other crap because their isn't a lot of viewing audience at the moment - the expense doesn't justify the returns.

Assuming that FTA TV is worth watching (I don't consider it worth watching now, but obviously other people still do) by the time most households are watching HD, the networks will have it plastered with all the shyte you see on SD right now. So enjoy it while it lasts, because it won't last.

[daro1503559926]

I'm waiting to see how many ep's before it's shares the same fate with BSG & The 4400 & other Sci-Fi shows on FTA right now.

Place your bets everybody.....

[matturn]

Possibly not so true for feature-length movies, but in a 45-minute drama (yes, Torchwood was made for less than an hour) then having sufficient rapid plot development makes it far less likely that it's going to be hard to cut it naturally in 4 or 5 places.

I think increasing number BBC dramas are now co-productions with networks with intra-program ad breaks, but I'm not sure which of it's commercial partners have such breaks, and which don't. It's expensive dramas tend to be co-pros with HBO, it's Doctor Who series with the CBC and it's period dramas with WGBH or A&E.

CBC has ads every ten minutes or so, so I imagine the new Doctor Whos work with ads at this timing.

[Neon Kitten]

Sssh, between you and me, watch Ten SD and Ten HD at the same time next time the credits roll or anything. I deeply appreciate everything the guys at Ten HD are doing.

Oh, absolutely. But as someone who still watches and records in SD by necessity, I hate their SD encoder and always have (not to mention the accursed white dots) and I *despise* their new stat muxing.

As for the ads ... you've got me thinking. I believe I probably would choose ads over watermarks; but it's an intriguing question and worth starting a poll. I mean, my initial reaction is "at least you can remove the ads", but given the effort involved, it's actually true about watermarks too.

I'd choose watermarks, but only watermarks like those used on US network TV - small, unobtrusive and IN THE CORNER OF THE 16:9 FRAME!

Still, I'd vote for ads over watermarks, for HD shows, based largely on how much the glowing billboard-size logo was intruding my enjoyment of "Planet Earth" last night.

The fact that the ABC persists with that obnoxious watermark is a joke. Even my 80 year-old parents were complaining about it spoiling the picture on their new LCD TV.

Possibly not so true for feature-length movies, but in a 45-minute drama (yes, Torchwood was made for less than an hour)

But not for 45 minutes - and remember, 42 minutes is now the standard length for commercial TV (41 minutes or less in Australia). The shortest episode of Torchwood is a shade under 47 minutes, and most of them run close to or over 50 minutes.

[myk]

What a n00b I must look like.

I mean, I come on here a few times a week an it's already fallen off the front page. I gotta find a way to increase the number of entries per page.

CK.

Nah, djos is just being rude. It wasn't even on the page, but on another forum.

Thankyou for posting it here on the "hi-def" forum, so we can hear about it. (It IS relevant.)

[djOS]

Nah, djos is just being rude. It wasn't even on the page, but on another forum.

Thankyou for posting it here on the "hi-def" forum, so we can hear about it. (It IS relevant.)

No I wasn't being rude, just practical - the >>> search function <<< finds all the Torchwood topics with ease!

The fact that the original topic is in the "Program Content, Scheduling and Comments" forum is just as relevant as the HiDef Forum!

My main beef is the same as most other "Senior Members" here, and that is ppl (especially newer members) dont bother to check for existing relevant topics and as a result spawn multiple topics all talking about the same thing - It's not as bad as it was 6-12 months go but it is still very poor form when it happens.

[SimonB1503560073]

The thing here, djOS, is that I don't come on to this system every day and think "Hmmm, what can I type into the search function that I may be interested in, just in case it's in a forum I don't frequent?". If ckent hadn't put it here, there's a pretty good chance it may have started on TEN and I hadn't known. So, he gets my thanks.

Surely we can meet in the middle and just make sure ongoing commentary of it gets pushed to the right forum once the announcement is made? Gee, perhaps we could even lock the thread?

Anyway, it's not the end of the world.

Best regards,

Simon....

[djOS]

The thing here, djOS, is that I don't come on to this system every day and think "Hmmm, what can I type into the search function that I may be interested in, just in case it's in a forum I don't frequent?". If ckent hadn't put it here, there's a pretty good chance it may have started on TEN and I hadn't known. So, he gets my thanks.

Surely we can meet in the middle and just make sure ongoing commentary of it gets pushed to the right forum once the announcement is made? Gee, perhaps we could even lock the thread?

Anyway, it's not the end of the world.

Best regards,

Simon....

That has to be the worst argument I've ever seen! so what you are saying is that you go into the one forum section and ignore the rest?

It's really simple to keep an eye on all current topics on the forum, it's called the >>> "View New Posts" <<< option at the top right hand corner of the board just next to "My Controls". Anytime someone posts in a topic it elevates that topic to the top of this list and it's how most of us keep a look out for Topics of interest!

Some of you folk need to sit a Forums 101 course! :ph34r:

[SimonB1503560073]

djOS, different strokes for different folks. I'm not going to get into an argument about the way I use these forums, I was just trying to put my point of view. You can't be right all the time, as I can't be. Live with it.

Simon....

[ckent]

Hmmm, how about a middle ground?

If everyone posts to the most appropriate forum, then this helps those who are only reading one or two forums. And at the same time it's still important to search for posts in that forum.

Just trying to help here: I'm not sure that "Program Content, Scheduling & Comments" is the correct place to discuss the finer points of difference between BBC's and Ten's HD broadcasts.

Also, say you're just hanging out for the latest HD shows. I'm sure I'm not the only one here -- there are far too many posts to check out "View New Posts" for all topics. Maybe I can exclude all the topics to do with the latest XYZ brand / model of SD decoder? (There must be dozens by now).

Even so, it's important to post in the most appropriate forum. Say I hadn't heard of the show coming to Ten, like SimonB, but I only read this part of the forum (and maybe the HD monitors thread, say).

So while I can agree it's important for writers to do a search before starting a new topic, I think it's also important to post in the right forum -- because you can't expect the casual reader to go searching just on the off-chance of spotting something interesting. Too much to sift through.

Bottom line, I think we should apply a lower threshold of effort for readers than writers.

CK.

[djOS]

Hmmm, how about a middle ground?

If everyone posts to the most appropriate forum, then this helps those who are only reading one or two forums. And at the same time it's still important to search for posts in that forum.

Just trying to help here: I'm not sure that "Program Content, Scheduling & Comments" is the correct place to discuss the finer points of difference between BBC's and Ten's HD broadcasts.

Also, say you're just hanging out for the latest HD shows. I'm sure I'm not the only one here -- there are far too many posts to check out "View New Posts" for all topics. Maybe I can exclude all the topics to do with the latest XYZ brand / model of SD decoder? (There must be dozens by now).

Even so, it's important to post in the most appropriate forum. Say I hadn't heard of the show coming to Ten, like SimonB, but I only read this part of the forum (and maybe the HD monitors thread, say).

So while I can agree it's important for writers to do a search before starting a new topic, I think it's also important to post in the right forum -- because you can't expect the casual reader to go searching just on the off-chance of spotting something interesting. Too much to sift through.

Bottom line, I think we should apply a lower threshold of effort for readers than writers.

CK.

Cmon guy's, squabbling over semantics like it should be in "High Definition & Widescreen Digital Programs" vs "Program Content, Scheduling & Comments", this is just silly (and not my point at all) - my whole point is that if there is already a relevant thread it should be used! Multiple threads for an individual show does no one any favors!

CK I agree with you on this point "So while I can agree it's important for writers to do a search before starting a new topic, I think it's also important to post in the right forum" - like I said above, in this case (referring to the latter half of your statement) it is pure semantics - I would agree with you if either of the 2 Torchwood threads was in say the "Home Theatre" forums.

For those of you --SNIP-- who are to lazy to keep an eye on the forum as a whole; frankly if you miss topics of interest to you, then you have absolutely no-one but yourselves to blame!

[john1503559500]

No I wasn't being rude, just practical - the >>> search function <<< finds all the Torchwood topics with ease!

The fact that the original topic is in the "Program Content, Scheduling and Comments" forum is just as relevant as the HiDef Forum!

My main beef is the same as most other "Senior Members" here, and that is ppl (especially newer members) dont bother to check for existing relevant topics and as a result spawn multiple topics all talking about the same thing - It's not as bad as it was 6-12 months go but it is still very poor form when it happens.

Oh yes it was!! What's the need to be the forum cop?

[djOS]

Oh yes it was!! What's the need to be the forum cop?

I wasn't trying to play cop, I was merely having a winge about multiple threads for a single topic, but if you'd read the whole topic you know that already!