Thread Closed

Channel 4 Pres: 2017 - Present

Or Channel 4 are using "technical problem" as an excuse for something else that happened, maybe the film distributor pulled away the rights from Channel 4 all of a sudden.

However, considering the mess Channel 4 was left in after the subtitling debacle of 2021 showed what a massive tech mess can do to something simple as subtitles.

I suppose using the excuse of "technical problem" comes across better than "rights issues".

(22-01-2023, 01:26 AM)JMT1985 Wrote:  Or Channel 4 are using "technical problem" as an excuse for something else that happened, maybe the film distributor pulled away the rights from Channel 4 all of a sudden.

However, considering the mess Channel 4 was left in after the subtitling debacle of 2021 showed what a massive tech mess can do to something simple as subtitles.
That distributor? Paramount+, according to the new-look Wikipedia. The film was never released in cinemas and went straight to that streaming service. So how did Channel 4 get the rights in the first place? Paramount owns Channel 5!
en.wikipedia.org 

(21-01-2023, 11:48 PM)JMT1985 Wrote:  What technical problems can cause a channel to pull a film?  Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s movies on TV were aired from proper film reels, but this is 2023, all digital now, and surely back up to ensure this could not happen?
Yes because digital stuff never goes wrong.....  Rolleyes

That wasn't quite JMT's point. In the digital domain you can have multiple servers running the same content in sync so if one develops a fault you just cross-fade to the back up. That wasn't practical for most routine transmissions from tape or telecine.

It's rare for pre-records played out from the pres/playout facility to have technical problems that are noticeable to the viewer because there is so much redundancy.

This does sound like technical problems being blamed for a non-tech issue
[-] The following 1 user Likes Steve in Pudsey's post:
  • JMT1985

(22-01-2023, 03:19 AM)JAS84 Wrote:  So how did Channel 4 get the rights in the first place? Paramount owns Channel 5!

Irrelevant. There are countless Viacom/Paramount programmes and films on other channels / services. Why aren't they on Channel 5? Because Channel 5 didn't pay for them. Other companies did.
[-] The following 10 users Like rick's post:
  • benzj, DeMarkay, eyeTV, gottago, Happy2001, Jeff, SB678, Stooky Bill, thomash79, TVNerd

(22-01-2023, 09:14 AM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  That wasn't quite JMT's point. In the digital domain you can have multiple servers running the same content in sync so if one develops a fault you just cross-fade to the back up. That wasn't practical for most routine transmissions from tape or telecine.

It's rare for pre-records played out from the pres/playout facility to have technical problems that are noticeable to the viewer because there is so much redundancy.
Doesn't mean stuff doesn't go wrong, if your content is corrupt or incorrect on one server then that will just sync to the others. 

The other thing about server based systems is that it's a lot easier to delete or do something wrong with a file. Sure you could lose a tape, or drop it, but a programme on server can be rendered useless by a click of a mouse or at the quirk of a piece of software. 

If there's a problem with one file, then chances are unless you're quick to notice, there's soon multiple copies of it.... or no copies of it

Not that saying I know what happened last night, but don't think there's less scope for cock up just because it's all on computers. In some ways they make it easier to mess things up and Jon tangible assets are sometimes less easy to fix

(22-01-2023, 03:26 PM)Stooky Bill Wrote:  
(22-01-2023, 09:14 AM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  That wasn't quite JMT's point. In the digital domain you can have multiple servers running the same content in sync so if one develops a fault you just cross-fade to the back up. That wasn't practical for most routine transmissions from tape or telecine.

It's rare for pre-records played out from the pres/playout facility to have technical problems that are noticeable to the viewer because there is so much redundancy.
Doesn't mean stuff doesn't go wrong, if your content is corrupt or incorrect on one server then that will just sync to the others. 

The other thing about server based systems is that it's a lot easier to delete or do something wrong with a file. Sure you could lose a tape, or drop it, but a programme on server can be rendered useless by a click of a mouse or at the quirk of a piece of software. 

If there's a problem with one file, then chances are unless you're quick to notice, there's soon multiple copies of it 

Not that saying I know what happened last night, but don't think there's less scope for cock up just because it's all on computers. In some ways they make it easier to mess things up and Jon tangible assets are sometimes less easy to fix
And before any of that, the file has to arrive in the first place. Vast majority of the time it goes smoothly but there are lots of things that can go wrong in the delivery process.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Transmission's post:
  • Stooky Bill

(22-01-2023, 11:11 AM)rick Wrote:  
(22-01-2023, 03:19 AM)JAS84 Wrote:  So how did Channel 4 get the rights in the first place? Paramount owns Channel 5!

Irrelevant. There are countless Viacom/Paramount programmes and films on other channels / services. Why aren't they on Channel 5? Because Channel 5 didn't pay for them. Other companies did.
And many broadcasters who have entered the streaming market late looking for a piece of the Netflix pie have learned the hard way that actually selling content to other broadcasters and streamers brings in more revenue than selling direct to customers.

(24-01-2023, 05:51 PM)Brekkie Wrote:  
(22-01-2023, 11:11 AM)rick Wrote:  Irrelevant. There are countless Viacom/Paramount programmes and films on other channels / services. Why aren't they on Channel 5? Because Channel 5 didn't pay for them. Other companies did.
Any many broadcasters who have entered the streaming market late looking for a piece of the Netflix pie have learned the hard way that actually selling content to other broadcasters and streamers brings in more revenue than selling direct to customers.

I think HBO Max is proof of that strategy being a reason alone why a company known for distributing it's shows to other networks (i.e: ABC, CBS) can't exactly be their own Disney locking shows away behind their own paywall, because it doesn't subside costs to even keep the show on their service.
[-] The following 2 users Like Allanbuzzy's post:
  • benzj, Roger Darthwell
Thread Closed


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)