Just to clarify my last posting...

My request to Max for info was not intended to blame On-Air Presentation staff for the watermark. I know that Max is only doing his job. And it is clear that Max hates the watermark as much as me.

What I am after is some inside info on how the watermark is justified within the ABC.

It was a policy decision by Russel Balding ABC manager
:ph34r:

and if you can get them into the 16:9 area then that would be even better, this is after all a W I D E S C R E E N digital broadcast, something I guess management has no idea about.


Monkeys in charge of the nut house!!!!

the problem with bugs is they have to be in a location that works in 4.3 & 16.9 if you are told to put them in at the program at the editing stage hence 14.9..... safe not my decision........ what I'm saying is the evolving abc standards for bugs & its location & who puts them into programes has to be standised & 1 bug is ok as it is now abc policy........IE you do what you are told to do....but 2 or more bugs on the screen well..............I wish I could find that can of fly spray

Max it was great to hear your views from inside. I long suspected that Russel Balding was the reason.

I also think that it has something to do with the agreement with Foxtel. If it is part of the agreement wouldn't this be a breach of the charter as outside commercial interests are influencing the presentation of the ABC?

Does anyone remember when pay tv was launched, the ABC developed a whole range of pay channels but unfortunately didn't think to ask the operators first whether they wanted them. I think that the senior management has a fixation with pay television, which will only have negative consequences in the future.

well, I have a place that works, not at all, hehe

Still, I take it this is all due to the fact that the 4:3 analogue comes from the digital transmission, figures, make the hi-tech suffer due to old junk.
Maybe one day they will all wake up, but I doubt it.

As someone who has worked in a pres control room and is now an editor I am ASTOUNDED that the watermark is ever applied to an actual program tape. This is as dumb a decision I can ever imagine. This is taxpayers money at work in 'Everyone's ABC"?!? C'mon!!!

I noticed the other day that a promo for Little Britain contained a clip from the end of the previous week's episode and included the bug which was faded right at the end of the program exactly as broadcast. So they don't even have a "clean" source from which to produce their own promo material. Maybe I should offer them my de-watermarked versions. :-)

Mmmm...an accountant.

Who watches his/our/your ABC via a taxpayer funded Poxtel/Floptus connection - and sees that his/our/your ABC-TV come up on Ch: 102 - therefore the watermark on everything - because it all gets way too confusing for the 'super elite' Executive Directors to work out and who most likely know far less about Digital TV and what it can do, than even the newest of the 'newbies' on this forum.

The current head of television (no names, please!) had to return her STB & wide-screen TV, as it was too difficult for her to make it work without a fleet of techos hanging around her residence just to change the channels for her, or so I'm told?

Jet :ph34r:

BTW: ABC2 I'm told is a "NO-PO" - cause that's what they wanted - 'cheap & nasty', and that amigos it appears, is exactly what they are getting - Jesus they are even loading ABC2 material into the GVG Profile at only 10Mbps and with a moderately long GOP structure too boot, sounds like a recipe for disaster to me?

SBS seems to do this as well. Their sports programs, which give a glimpse into what the rest of SBS will look like should they choose to eliminate me as a regular viewer, often have two watermarks whenever their own file footage appears. It's not as though SBS could claim the high ground over the ABC anyway, since it's not just about the watermark but the management arrogance it represents, and both broadcasters have been suffering from that.

Dropped my letter with followup questions for the ABC in the postbox yesterday. Won't post it here (in case they're monitoring the thread) but will when I get a reply.

Any suggestions as to what to ask for (ie specific documents) are welcomed. Post-Advisory Council, this is my next step.

- Miles.

I've got to wonder whether this is the case for all content, because ABC HD still doesn't have the watermark on everything - Enough Rope is a good example. If it were being applied in editing, we would expect to see it everywhere.

Then again, maybe that's why we aren't seeing it on HD - it is being applied to new programming only (especially N&CA).

Agreed that this would have to be the most moronic approach that you could take to watermarking, and completely unacceptable in terms of our national broadcaster's library.

- Miles.

Yeah, I also sent off a letter to the Advisory Council last week - don't know if it made it to them in time for those meetings in Hobart, but I am also thinking about the next step. It's beginning to look like this battle needs some co-odination and co-operation if nothing much happens from the AC.

Well, this is a serious question - what sort of setup can I get for a PC with digital tuner to remove watermarks? I'm talking from the ground up... I know nothing about what's actually available. Is there a vendor that specializes in this?

Cheers.

Just looked at the oztam figures for Survey period 1 (18:00 to 24:00 FTA only) and here are the figures (same period last year in brackets)

ABC 16.3 (17.1)
7 29.0 (24.4)
9 28.4 (31.3)
10 21.9 (22.9)
SBS 4.5 ( 4.3)

The interesting thing is that the ABC has had a drop in ratings, but SBS has actually gone up! So perhaps the watermark is having a significant impact on viewer numbers. I would have thought that ABC viewers would have had a bigger reaction to it than commercial stations viewers.

Source: www.oztam.com.au

Well according to those figures Seven (first with watermarks ?) has gone up over 4% and Nine & Ten (later implementers of watermarking) have gone down only slightly.

Maybe, just maybe, watermarks have nothing to do with these figures, and it is probably something to do with the actual programmes on the telly.
Actually I have found my own viewing habits would be similar to those ratings changes, less nine due to their atrocious treatment of The west wing, and no new Sopranos (yet) - plus I'm sick of Grissom, slightly less good British stuff on the ABC, some great new docos on SBS and Lost and Housewives addiction on Seven.

Cheers

JB

I just got a reply back from my complaint a few weeks ago.

"The ABC regrets that you do not like the introduction of watermarking on ABC Television programs....
In a multichannel environment there is a need to subtly identify the channel for viewers and this identification will become even more necessary as the number of digital stations increase in the coming years....
Watermarking works against piracy (illegal off air recording) and for this reason it was adopted in most countries a number of years ago..."

All those points have been mentioned already it seems.

"As a result of feedback from our audiences we have reduced the watermark's translucence or strength by half, we have reduced the size of the watermark, and we have moved it to the bottom right hand corner of the screen."

I'm just glad I got a response. Nice to know the ABC actually read my complaint, even if they haven't removed the watermark altogether.

There is only one problem with your theory, the ratings above are only for last year, not since Seven, Nine and Ten introduced their watermarking. Channel Seven, Nine and Ten are watermark versus watermark ratings, while ABC is no watermark versus watermark ratings.

BTW I agree with you on your point that it has more to do with what show is on the TV, rather than the watermark

Is this the correct email address for the ABC manager Russel Balding?

Balding.Russel@abc.net.au
.

Submariner - Posted 11/3/05 @ 02:41 AM


Yep indeedy weedie it is, except for the spelling - i.e. 2 x L's in Russell - IIRC?

FFS: Please don't go the 'attack dog' route with him, rather try the robust "Vulcan Logic" approach, as his emails get read first I'm told by layers of underlings, who would weed out any 'toxic' complaints before he ever sights your email.

Good luck "Sub" & cheers,
Jet :ph34r:

Does this mean that one person, by themselves, decided that the ABC would have a watermark?

[/quote]

Well according to those figures Seven (first with watermarks ?) has gone up over 4% and Nine & Ten (later implementers of watermarking) have gone down only slightly.

Maybe, just maybe, watermarks have nothing to do with these figures, and it is probably something to do with the actual programmes on the telly.
Actually I have found my own viewing habits would be similar to those ratings changes, less nine due to their atrocious treatment of The west wing, and no new Sopranos (yet) - plus I'm sick of Grissom, slightly less good British stuff on the ABC, some great new docos on SBS and Lost and Housewives addiction on Seven.

Cheers

JB

[/quote]

I agree that it is probably due to programming, which reinforces my view that as a marketing tool the watermark is totally ineffective. If it was effective then the ABC's ratings would be higher than last year when they didn't have one irrespective of their programming. I hope though that the watermark has had an impact as this is probably the only thing that will get through to ABC management at the moment.

Seemingly so, yes, very possibly with ABC Board approval.

By the way, wait til you see Roy and HG this Saturday night, it to will have its own special watermark/bug, bottom left. The watermark/bug madness continues at a pace at 'your' ABC.

I lost my last full time job a few years back, (after 14 years service), because ONE "executive" decided to outsource 90% of the department I was in. Approved by the board. We were constantly told it wouldn't and wasn't going to happen right up till the day before it did.

I have little faith in coporate executives or boards as a result as you might understand.

They all got a HUGE bonus. (Voted for by themseleves for doing such a good job). From what I hear, (from contacts who still work there), it hasn't improved services, nor has it reduced costs. In fact service levels are down and costs are up. Any "improvement" was very short lived.

And of course that executive has moved on, as has most of the board.

The employees (and you the public) are stuck with their decision.
And we, it seems, are stuck with bloodly awful watermarks, on "our" ABC.

Does anyone have a screepcap of the watermark from the 7th Feb or thereabouts, when it was bigger, bolder and in the top right? Oh, and on a 16:9 programme, preferably where it really stands out (i.e. on a dark background).

I've looked through and can't find one, but would appreciate it if anyone has it. Thanks.

Thanks for the info. Logic dictates that softly, softly catchee monkey

Balding.Russell@abc.net.au

Just as an exercise for the evening I have placed screencaps of the main six channels together on a page. It's not so easy to judge from small images I guess, but when you see them like this it appears that Nine and ABC2 have the most offensive watermarks. Nine's is easily the boldest.

Check them out here, apologies for any popups that might occur.

It would have been nice to compare them all on the same (black) background!

Some people love these things - dont know why, myself!
Maybe since I'm not a sheep ... or a cow for that matter ... anyone for some branding...

Here you go santa you will like this if you want to compare:
I have all regional watermarks, and ABC. I am missing a couple but most are there.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/queen69/networkswatermarks.rar

Nice caps, did u do that tonight, I'm guessing yes due to ten's comedy special

Yeah, I was trying to get them on dark or plainish backgrounds so you could see them clearly. Still have to improve on ABC and Ten (both need to be on a darker background).

Just checked my recording of Four Corners from ABC2 and had to stop watching after a couple of minutes, as it turns out the "2" actually means 2 watermarks. While flipping channels yesterday I also noticed the same being done to an episode of Foreign Correspondent. In a matter of weeks, the ABC has gone from being (mostly) watermark-free to showing two watermarks during entire programs. A pretty dramatic, disheartening decline in its standards, thanks to the Management.

P.S. Thanks to ABC TV, I'm now on page 356 of The Naked and the Dead. Books don't have watermarks yet. Neither does Radio National

In comparing watermarks you need to compare like with like.

The ABC has a much brighter and more noticable watermark on some programs (eg 7:30 report, Foreign Correspondent).

The watermark shown in Timmy's examples is the less bright watermark.

I do not watch Nine, but it is possible that the as the Nine example is from a sports report this might be brighter than the normal nine watermark.

Careful! You might start getting the radio equivalent - ie. "Radio National" whispered in the background every few seconds... You can just imagine the official ABC reply if they did too - ie. identification, copyright protection, blah, blah, blah...

As far as watching less ABC - if it wasn't for the personal amusement of watching some watermark-less episodes of Dr Who (how did I ever get scared by that?!?) I would not be watching any ABC at all. BTW, does anyone know why DW had a watermark for a few episodes and now it has disappeared?

Cheers.

Is it just me, or does Ten (well TDT in my case) use a watermark that dynamically adjusts to the background? It appears to vary in intensity (translucency?) during broadcasts, making it relatively low impact.

If there was one watermark in Australia that was designed to 'prevent piracy', I would pick the Ten watermark. It's certainly the least obnoxious in my book (not 100% on its positioning though).

- Miles.

I've gotta say I've actually found the Ten watermark the most annoying of them all - mainly due to the positioning. Ten has been completely unwatchable for me now for 2 months. And I seriously doubt if they're using any sort of dynamic adjustment - it's more likely to be the perception due to the fact that the lines are thinner.

OK watching the start of miss marple and I'd swear theyve tonned the watermark back. Its very subtle now infact in some scenes almost not noticeable...yeah I hope this is the way its going ...soon it will dissapear !

I freely admit that the watermark is sometimes almost invisible.

What I hate about the watermark is that when the camera pans or zooms, or when the area of the watermark becomes uniformly very bright or dark, the watermark leaps out at me.

This takes my attention away from the program, and to the watermark.

The only acceptable solution is to do as the BBC do - NO watermarks.

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=166566

check out above captures definetely almost invisible on ABC SD and definetely gone on ABC HD.

I just checked out the live ABC SD picture.

And sorry, for the reasons given in my last posting, this watermark is NOT invisible to me.

I would say that the ABC watermarks brightness is about the same as the current channel 9 watermark.

As I have said fairly often, I think that the current ABC watermark is what they always intended for programs such as Miss Marple. (Note that the much brighter watermark is still used for programs such as Foreign Correspondent and Current Affairs).

I never said it was invisible - I said it was almost invisible - if it were invisible we wouldn't see it now would we :



the HD chanel watermark ofcourse is invisible and surely you can't argue with that one given my captures above.

point I'm making is we're making some progress

certainly no giving up till its gone forever ! - we still have a fight on our hands - I'm still complaining.

There have been comments over the last week on the various watermark threads saying that as the majority don't care then those of us who don't like them should get over it. Specifically that there is nothing that we can do about it.

I think this displays a fundamental lack of knowledge of how our whole economic/political system operates. If the majority who don't care were the most important consideration, why in an election is all the focus on marginal electorates. Similarly television programmes that still have a large solid core of loyal viewers are axed because they have a relatively small drop in ratings. It is the consumer, voter, etc. at the margin which attracts all the attention. Advertisers in particular are trying to attract consumers at the margin not the vast majority who already purchase their product. So how bigger drop in viewing numbers will it take for significant shifts in the television industry. I would suspect not that much.

I have also read that the board's of broadcasters know what they are doing, and wouldn't have done it if it wasn't to their benefit. Well if this was true then why do we have companies going broke. Unfortunately they are all human and make mistakes just look at the problems Seven has had up until this year. Their thinking is also quite often short term and they neglect to look at long term implications (once again look at Seven's decision not to back the other bidders for the AFL rights).

I believe the difference between Australia today and the US 20+ years ago, is that technology offers many alternatives today in particular DVD's. With an increasing amount of television series available on DVD and at reasonable prices, why put up with watermarks, banner advertising, series shown out of sequence, etc. etc.. As video on demand takes off this will increase the pace of change. I can not believe that any industry would meet the challenge of competition by degarading the quality of their product.

Finally to the ABC and Russell Baldings reason for introducing the watermark. The fact that many ABC programmes are released on DVD before a series has even been completed on FTA (French Leave) and some telemovies are available on DVD even before they are shown on FTA and the high cost of ABC over other DVD's shows that the goal is to promote DVD sales over viewing of the ABC. For unlike the other networks ABC's income will increase in the short term by having more people watch DVD's and so be it if there is less FTA viewers. This goes back to short term thinking, as in the long term it will have a negative effect on sales if FTA viewers fall.

That is my 8 cents worth for today!

I'd been wondering why ABC2 has its watermark in the top right, after ABC supposedly bowed to public pressure and moved the main channel's logo to the bottom right. Until I watched Stateline today. Quite clearly the ABC has kept ABC2's logo up there in order that it doesn't overlap the already-watermarked content of shows like this.

As if the two logos (ABC helix and"2") aren't enough they are deliberately catering to three. I hope to hell that god-awful Roy and HG show doesn't get repeated on ABC2 or else it'll start to look like my avatar.

im not botherd about abcs logos no more.

you need to change your avatar now timmy to include the "2" and also the LG logo from SBS weather

I'd like to go back to Max Gain's original post about the watermark directive having come from Russell Balding. I'm interested to see the email on that one. You don't have to post it here on the forum. You can email it to me or even just drop up a hardcopy. You know where I sit.


Yeah, that's right. I took your advice and joined up here.

Yeah, I noticed that (hard to miss really), I guess its for all those really really stupid ppl that need it for "station identification", just in case you can't work out from the top one thats its the ABC and 2, they put in another at the bottom, just to reinforce that this turely is "your ABC".

All we need now is something like that Denton mark as well, and they can "frame" a 16:9 picture as 4:3 using watermarks. Then comes the line "There have been added there to help our viewers focus on the middle of the screen, since this is where all the action is and we have found that without them, ppl just tend to let their eyes wonder off to the sides of these pointless widescreen pictures and miss all the really important stuff."

Interesting that channel 10 had an ABC Denton clip on last night about Slater the cricketer. It had no watermark and it was not magnified to get rid of the watermark, but at the very start, it did have a thanks to the ABC for supplying the clip.

Very interesting Submariner!

I noted that last nights Denton had the dim version of the standard ABC watermark on the bottom right, and NO Denton watermark on the left.

Four Corners had the bright version of the ABC watermark, and this was moved up and to the left so that it would show on a 4:3 cut. I found this watermark particularly annoying. (The Denton watermark did not annoy me because I didn't watch the program.)