Round Up Wednesday 9 March 2011
Post categories: round up
| 13:49 UK time, Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Spencer Piggot's blog post about the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s technology strategy earlier in the week has provoked some interest. Most of it focuses on 3D:
From The Register: . A comment on the Reg Hardware story from :
Good ol' Auntie for realising 3D is a gimmick that is more about the Cinema's being able to generate more money per seat...
From The Telegraph: :
...the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s more cautious approach will frustrate television manufacturers, who know more programming will be needed to boost sales...
From TechEYE: .
From Broadband TV News: .
From Computer Weekly:.
From Broadband TV News: .
From the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Research and Development blog: "Universal Control":
Given the trend for home media devices to gain connections to the home network, we believe that the best way to gain the advantages listed above is via a standardised API: a way for devices to communicate with one another over the home network to share information about and control the presentation of media to the user.
Also from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ R&D blog: "R&D and Blue Peter- Ski Rossendale Free-viewpoint visualisation".
The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Tom Scott needs your help to build a "science domain model": (from Tom's personal blog). Thanks to Tom.
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online
Comment number 1.
At 9th Mar 2011, citizenloz wrote:There are probably good reasons why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is being cautious on 3D TV. After all, 3D for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a cost, not a source of revenue.
However, I would hate to think that important events in the UK that could be or are being filmed in 3D - such as Wimbledon and the London Olympics are not going to be available to those with 3D TVs just because of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s lack of a 3D broadcast capability.
If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ cannot broadcast in 3D, then I would hope they are willing to give up the 3D rights to those events so that those who have a 3D capability can make best use of it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 9th Mar 2011, Alan Robertson wrote:Well done the Beeb for not joining in on the pointless 3D bandwagon!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 10th Mar 2011, Kit Green wrote:2. At 20:59pm on 9th Mar 2011, Alan Robertson wrote:
Well done the Beeb for not joining in on the pointless 3D bandwagon!
--------------------------------------------------------------
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ must remain as a player in this field in terms of future standards and compatibility.
At least they were involved in the first live stereoscopic sports relay in the UK. This was the Calcutta Cup a few years ago (2007 ?) which was played at Murrayfield and projected live at Riverside Studios to an invited audience. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ were involved to help show that the delivery chain was practicable.
Despite not being much of a a sports fan I was very pleased to be there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 25th Mar 2011, Barbazenzero wrote:Nick,
With the latest change in your system for posting and displaying blog posts, there are many changes in the HTML supported in post and in the way that individual posts are anchored using the time stamp. There are also new differences that have crept in between what you see in preview mode and what you get in the actual post.
In an ideal world, the blog help would have a statement on what HTML is allowed, as it used to before the 2008 changes, but I do realise that resources are tight.
As, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no official ´óÏó´«Ã½ post on the topic since your New Look For ´óÏó´«Ã½ Blogs of 16 March 2009, an update would be appreciated. Failing that, isn't it time for another Open Thread to give us a test area where we can test for ourselves?
A particular problem in explaining to others what works is that the HTML entities for the "less than" and "greater than" signs which are essential to explain tagging no longer work in preview mode and give a "dna-comment-error" when you try to post, presumably due to early conversion treating even the proper HMTL entities for "less than" and/or "greater than" as un-matched tag pairs.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 28th Mar 2011, Nick Reynolds wrote:Hi Barbazenzero - thanks for your comment. Strictly speaking you are off topic, but I can tell you that there should be a couple of blog posts coming in the next 48 hours about the new comments module, which will hopefully answer some of your questions.
Thanks
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 29th Mar 2011, Nick Reynolds wrote:Barbazenzero - the blog posts I spoke of were published yesterday. You may find this one of particular interest as it lists the HTML tags that are allowed in comments.
Thanks
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 30th Mar 2011, Barbazenzero wrote:Nick,
Many thanks. The link you provide is excellent and now bookmarked. I'll link to it again when others ask questions like why italics (i tag) no longer work.
I do realise that my post was off-topic, but this was one of the few places open to posting where I was pretty sure it would be read and responded to.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)