Not totally sure when HD went to 576p, but it was a very good few months ago.
Comparing quality using the openning titles isn't the best spot (half of its black anyway) and it was all studio/process camera type work, so I would expect it too be all good quality.
It is possible that ABC HD has been "improved", tho given the source to start with, I doubt it would be any better then SD anyway.
Watching on a normal TV (toppy is recording in another room), it usually doesn't look too bad, but then it is a low-res TV and I'm some distance away. Once I then inspect the recording on the computer, the noise really stands out.

And yes, having to re-encode to MPEG2 and remove the watermark, etc would be more of a pain, plus use a hell of a lot more DVD's with little to no quality improvement. I made the choice from the start, not to do it as normal DVD-Video's, it was just going to be so many DVD's. If it matters that much, I buy/will buy it on DVD when I can.

As for the real-time watermark removal, no I didn't try it out, watching so little FTA TV these days, it just wasn't worth stuffing around with.

ABC-HD went 576P about the time of "Horror On Fang Rock".
That was about late February 2005, just after they introduced and then removed the bug.
The comet trails really stoood out at the time.
I'd switched to recording with a DVB-T card and was comparing it to the old DGwreck STB.

I've been recording the HD channel since the bug went full time.
Just storing on disks. Hopefully to do something with it sometime in the future.

Would it not be nice if the BBC just did vanilla boxed season releases.
Much like "The Key To Time".

An interesting bit of the BBC website about watermarking/ dogging...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tvbrand...trictions.shtml

This sort of document is not that unusual - internally network staff need to be vigilant about lots of stuff including aspect ratios and audio levels, etc. So it just informs external producers. What is funny about this particular document is that it implies that watermarks interfere with content, but that somehow it's only objectionable if it's another graphic - which is ridiculous. Either it interferes or it doesn't.

Just as ridiculous is the sports editing I've been doing for one of the networks and 4 times in the space of the last week or so I had to remove the original watermark (same network) because the producers weren't happy with rebroadcasting it! (a clean version was not available) Well, when I say remove - the best I could do with the tools available was to blur it, which is kinda pathetic but still time consuming. Of course, it gets another watermark when it goes to air again... It's stuff like this that makes me want to give it away. And getting back to the original thread topic - the worst examples of this I have seen on the ABC. I'm so happy to see my taxes at work...

I have to admit I'm always amused when I see an obviously blurred watermark with another watermark sitting on top of it. (Usually on footage from overseas). Aren't the tv stations selling watermarks as a way to "work against piracy" and thus protect copyright?

So if a video has a watermark on it isn't it there to protect the original overseas copyright owner? So when a station blurs it aren't they going against their own stated principles?

I'm always reminded of that documentary (ithink it was called) "Blue Eyes"; where one of the observations was that the "people in charge" make it up as they go along, changing the rules as they go, to suite themselves, and even having conflicting rules ......

From yesterday's Stateline on ABC2:

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/1535/wa...kmadness1xt.jpg

I'm not sure what the record is if you count true watermarks and don't include similar graphics, but I think I once saw five on the Sunday program (in my area, I think it includes a Sunday watermark and NBN logo to begin with). Perhaps people should cap these examples and send them to logofreeabc.com to help demonstrate how "professional" this looks.

It's bad enough that these things exist at all, but it's astounding how quickly we went from a clean ABC/SBS to having not just one, but as many as three permanent watermarks in one program, plus additional transient watermarks.

Now that is how you should watermark ... Classic isn't it.

I often see that Ten news shoing the sports and the ST logo but that is the worst. Actually, one thing they could have done is doubled up the ABC watermark like they sometimes do giving that blurry 3D look to it.

Lately NBN9 is putting a non-transparent watermark over other watermarks, but it only partially covers the other channels watermark.

This may be of some interest:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/abc...0717780664.html

Cheers

Strewth its gone from tonight's (31/Oct) Four Corners here in Perth.

Good on ya ABC.

But the blot returned for Mediawatch

I noticed it too in S.A. . Thought it was to good to be true so wasn't suprised when it returned during Media Watch.
You think that the large drop in viewing numbers since it's introduction would make them think about what they may have done to cause this!
Although it is probably due to programming, I would have thought it would definitely have had an impact.

Well, well, given the lack of "public-accountability" to us viewers, why should the government be any more special

On a side note, I live the line "I would like to make it absolutely crystal clear to you that in future we expect Mr Balding to be present or his successor in that position."

"or HIS SUCCESSOR", no need to read between the lines on that one is there!!!

Still, Doctor Who is nearing the end now, The Five Doctors is on this week, pretty soon it will be the sixth Doctor (who doesn't last too long) and then its the home stretch. As long as the watermark doesn't change once again, I'm all home free and will then stop watching.

I would not go either.

Who would want to listen to whining Liberal politicians like Santo Santoro, who said he had prepared "more than 1,000 questions, including many on claims of bias by the ABC." 1000 questions would have included "Whine, whine, why are you biased against the Liberal party, we give you money (bribe to be nice) ?"

hehe, well yeah, there is that too, but are you then saying that we are nothing more then "whining" consumers and thats why he doesn't listen to us either!!

If I was in his position, I would consider us (I do include myself) whining consumers. His position is that he does not understand why we have a problem with watermarks. If only he or his underlings would do their job and find out why people are complaining and take the complaints a little more seriously. No silly form letters for replies and listen to the people trying to make clean films, who do not want their film permanently marked and remarked again and again. Unfortunately, Balding is the one holding the power for now and even if he does have a successor, I doubt things will change, we can only hope.

BTW it makes me feel better, if we can make him feel a little uncomfortable with our whining and isn't that the most important thing

yeah, that and being able to "remove" the watermark from important "archive" copies

The thing I don't get about Mr Balding's absence is that just a few months ago he was being very prominent about letting others know why the ABC should get more of our money, but when the time comes to actually be part of the process which may enable that, he doesn't turn up and throws other senior management into deep water. Unless he's had some family tragedy or something like that, he really should be sacked. Well, that's what'd happen to most people, isn't it? (I'm hoping he's the only one who likes the watermark!)

Landline today did not have the watermark, but Gardening Australia following it did. At least it is a start if some programmes are now watermark free.

I still can't understand the justification of watermarking programmes from the UK for copyright protection when they do not watermark there.

It's all about ego.

I've also noticed the occassional program without a watermark.
They look so good.
Then "its" back on the next show.

The website

www.logofreeabc.tv

has been updated. If you find any errors, broken links, please email the webmaster.

feedback@logofreeabc.com

I'm sure submissions will be considered too.

Cheers

Figured I would just reply here...

On the home page, the first line "a meeting point for people who want to wish to protest the inroduction", maybe should be "a meeting point for people who wish to protest the introduction"

As, you make reference to Channel 9 Adelaide not having a watermark. This was/has been true, but right now the SD channel does have a watermark, no idea about HD tho. This is said again on the Bluster and Baloney page.

I have just been listening to a podcast of the Media Report of 22/12/05 from ABC Radio National. It discussed some very interesting points about the future of broadcast television, but they also had a bit to say about watermarks. They both didn't seemed to mind them but did say that they were a branding exercise. Which once again exposes the complete lie of the ABC's justifications.

The worrying thing is that the person being interviewed advocated even more watermarks in the form of advertising. Even advocating dynamic moving watermarks. This may work on sports broadcasts, but I think he is wrong to suggest that it would be acceptable elsewhere. He also made the rather strange comment about people not willing to pay for tv programming. Seeing as the growth area in dvd sales is television series, I think that people are willing to do just that. There are a whole number of issues here which would be better in another thread, but basically I don't think the future of programming is in degrading the product with various forms of on screen pollution.

Just bypass the ABC, and get bittorrent downloads instead of most BBC programs which TX in the UK without onscreen visual vandalism in the form of watermarks/bugs. Been watching Little Britain series 3, Extras series 1 and Spooks season 5 minus watermarks/bugs. Also, Carnivale Series 2, about to screen on the ABC has already been viewed by this chreub via HBO, again, minus a bug/watermark. Broadcast Television in this country is already dead as far as I am concerend. The networks here need to beef up local production, as they will not be able to compete with what can be gained off the internet, especially when internet speeds get more faster and faster, as international content will not generate ad dollars for the local networks as much in the future as before. If you know where to go, you can watch overseas networks now, in real time over the net. Failing more local production, the only way the Austrlian Networks will be able to compete is to show overseas programs either the same day or day or two after being screend in the country of origin. The Australian Broadcst TV industry will either have to change or it will die if it continues with its current arrogant mindset of treating viwers (whoops, I mean consumers) with utter contempt.

ct

Bloody shytemark #$$*#$& #*$&*$# #$*$*&#

Graham Blundell, in his end-of-year style piece for the Review section of the Oz, again mentioned the ridiculous worthlessness of these expensive wastes of space.

BTW: On the new ABC intros etc .... what a pretentious waste of freakin' money! Clowns!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/abc...7734151840.html

...could only hope this means the watermark might go with him and then I might start watching again.

Now we know why he did not go to the last meeting with the government. Another cut in the ABC's funding is around the corner. Hopefully they will not be able to afford watermarking.

I must admit, when I first read about this, I was thinking, once the new person is apointed, it maybe worth a few emails again, to see if one can get a "policy" change.

Of course with Doctor Who about to end anyway, its not really going to matter much anymore, its the only thing I've watched on the ABC all summer.

You'd probably find they'll stop running shows from the UK and import cheap Indian soapies rather than take the watermark away.

I strongly agree. Let's make sure we have a letter (snail mail preferred for maximum effect) at the ready when the appointment is announced.

I was thinking a letter or two would be a good idea myself. At least it will be fresh in the mind of who ever takes over. Can email/mail be directed to the Managing Director, or will it always be culled lower down before arriving at their desk?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17904323-421,00.html

what about a class action?

the abc2 watermark location is fantastic, zoom to 4:3 and its gone

and so is 1/3rd of your picture. makes widescreen digital a bit pointless then really, apart from the fact that ABC2 is digital only

heheh, I installed digital because it solved some horrible reception issues.
I don't have widescreen I have a tiny 48cm TV, so zooming to 4:3 allows me to read the text.

Nothing on TV makes buying a $2k display worthwhile. most content is still 4:3 the content that is 16:9 is hardly worth watching and when it is, its infested with advertising content. (timeshift or recording is a winner there).

Watermarks are a minor issue. to take legal action for a logo burnt into the screen is just poor form, you can afford the screen you can afford to replace it, or buy a crt and donate the leftover $ over to a worthy cause.
Like feed and cloth the poor maybe?

Whatever your views on watermarks, I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that owners could afford to be replacing their televisions on a regular basis. I hope to get many years out of my television before replacing it and would definitely not be able to afford to replace it if anything happened to it. (I actually have a rear projection because I was worried about the burn in issues that have been discussed elsewhere with plasmas)

Notice something gone on ABC TV tonight (27-04-06)...for West Wing But it came back for Hardware then it went again for Ride On Stranger...

I also noticed the logo disappearing from about 4-4:30pm 29/4/06, yet it was on 12-12:30pm. I started watching halfway through a program, and left halfway through the next, so it looks as though 2 programs in a row haven't been watermarked. Later in the night (about 9:30pm), I flicked over and the mark was there. As I write this, I flicked over again, and Rage was being shown with NO mark.

EDIT: ABC2 also had the mark on, then off sometime later, then on again.

Could this be a sign they are phasing out watermarking? I hope so!

Rage hasn't ever been shown with the ABC or ABC2 watermark.

Keep dreaming.
There is a push from the upper eschelons of the ABC to get the 576p service on LCN20 bugged/watermarked as well.
rage for the time being will not be defaced, owing to the changing aspect ratio within rage, sometimes within clips.
Hope this helps dampen your day, mine was soiled long ago.

Oh well. There's always watermark removers. Thanks for the info though (my mistake!). :|

Well, for me, since adding the watermark and the Doctor Who repeats are over, I see about 30mins a week of ABC watermarks (The Einstein Factor).
Which flows much the same with my general decrease in FTA viewing.

The only difference now, is that the FTA networks are starting to smell the roses (DVD, Internet, etc), I now care less and less what they do, I've moved on.

ABC has started squashing the closing credits on The Bill to promote some rally documentary..
Who are the idiots that think of this crap.

I saw that! I couldn't believe it! They've lost the plot.

I totally agree about the squashed credits. It will all be a down hill run from here. They seem intent on copying everything that the commercials do. Which is rather stupid when they are not reliant on advertising for their existence (although they do seem to have a hell of a lot of 'advertising' of one sort or another).
To compete like the commercials will get them no where, they do not have the resources to do it, and I think that the ratings show that they are following the wrong strategy. The focus of the ABC should be on providing the best quality television for the resources that they have available. I don't think that watermarking, squashing credits, etc. is consistent with this. It looks to me that they are setting themselves up to become a commercial network.

I also let out a yelp when The Bill's credits suddenly shrunk Ch10-style and Sunday's Peking - Paris show was promoted. Usually there's an additional '... next week of The Bill ...' voice over, but not last night.

This sort of stunt scares me - where next for the public broadcaster? Does the ABC even know their typical viewer? They seem to think their viewers are as flighty as those watching the commercial channels and don't hang about for credits, let alone the next show.

Thankfully there's still a world of difference between the ABC (and even SBS) and the commercials, and long may it stay so, but this sort of intrusion along with the watermark can be seen as the thin end of the wedge. Unnecessary and damned annoying. If they keep it up they'll lose me completely to Ch BT.

and thus it continues, tho I'm sure many aren't that surprised.

Make them do some work and lodge a complaint without actually complaining.
Send an email, asking for a list of the credits for the Bill that night, because you couldn't read them all squashed up.
If enough ppl do that, a enough times, then maybe they will think twice about it.
Yet another reason why the commercial stations don't have email contacts, still I guess you could call and ask them to read all the credits out over the phone

The other option is speeding up the credits as has been the case with many US sitcoms for years;
Last night the the Glass House's credits ran so fast that they were practically unreadable.

You will be scared to know how many ex commercial tv people have power to make such decisions at 'your', but 'their' ABC thesedays. The days of ABC innovation are long gone, but rather, commercial network immitation, and very badly done immitation is the norm there thesedays.