New BBC News studio
Nick Jeffery
N24/World style setup. Is this due to the change to widescreen? The studio
doesn't seem very well suited to 16:9 (it seems to fit very well onto 12:9
display) - or was this the idea behind the set? Does the new news broadcast
in 16:9 on digital, as it broadcasts in full-screen 12:9 on analogue.
On a more personal note, I'm somewht dismayed at this new effort. Reminds me
of the [ghastly] N24 too much... :o) - Oh, and I prefered the old colours.
But I suppose they'll grow on me....
--
Nick Jeffery - Web Designer and DJ
ni...@disa.co.uk - http://evildj.cjb.net
"I don't care for your attitude, you bring me down. I think you're rude."
JC
writes
>I've watched the news today, and it seems the studios have changed to the
>N24/World style setup.
Theme music is very good though :-)
--
James - Somewhere in East Anglia
"Writing with no connections to persons living, dead, in suspended animation"
For those with no sense of humour please note smilies strategically placed :-)
** Get hold of me by e-mail at jgc3 at bigfoot dot com **
Mark Carver
Nick Jeffery wrote in message <7h7nm6$hg8$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>I've watched the news today, and it seems the studios have changed to the
>doesn't seem very well suited to 16:9 (it seems to fit very well onto 12:9
>display) - or was this the idea behind the set? Does the new news broadcast
>in 16:9 on digital, as it broadcasts in full-screen 12:9 on analogue.
>
>On a more personal note, I'm somewht dismayed at this new effort. Reminds
me
>of the [ghastly] N24 too much... :o) - Oh, and I prefered the old colours.
>But I suppose they'll grow on me....
>
Call me old fashioned, but I'm more then capable of absorbing the news
just with a neutral background.
All these silly coloured sets, and background music only serve to distract
away from
the news itself , and in many cases trivialise what is actually very
important and/or
tragic content.
If you played background music while having a phone conversation, the
person the other end would think you were raving mad !!, reducing the news
to the same style as the Top 40 run down is just as perverse.
(I'm 35)
Cheers......
Robin Whitehead
from "Mark Carver" <ma...@aspenclose.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> Call me old fashioned, but I'm more then capable of absorbing the news
> just with a neutral background.
> All these silly coloured sets, and background music only serve to distract
> away from
> the news itself , and in many cases trivialise what is actually very
> important and/or
> tragic content.
> If you played background music while having a phone conversation, the
> person the other end would think you were raving mad !!, reducing the news
> to the same style as the Top 40 run down is just as perverse.
> (I'm 35)
> Cheers......
Yes, totally agree, and coming from someone nearly 20 yrs my junior.
Why does the Beeb spend so much on trying to compete with the
commercial companies? After all, it is a public service?!!!!! It
doesn't have to compete. It should be catering for the minorities-
the people who still want to watch imformative and interesting stuff.
And to be fair, it still probably has the edge but Ch.4 tends to
broadcast just as much minority stuff. I am talking about well made
and interesting documentaries as opposed to the trivial rubbish
fly-on-the-wall docs with the mandatory crooked horizon and
'artistic' constantly moving hand-held shots and the annoying
whip-pan from subject to subject and the distracting fast cut such
that you haven't time to see anything properly- that we see nowadays.
(Mounts high horse at this point)
Not to mention some of the music programs who are the biggest
purportrators of this visual assult. Don't the directors understand
that sometimes you need a shot that is still enough to be able to
actually see the techniques that the musician may be using. Probably
the most annoying is the rapid cutting such that it interferes with
brain patterns. And the crane shots- constantly swinging just because
they can!! It really gets so tedious to watch after a time and the
real dramatic effect of a slow crane shot is non-existant. Why aren't
we allowed to see what is actually going on in these situations?
Mark Carver is quite correct, this latest news stuff is one step down
the ladder in terms of transparent presentation of news material and
is one step towards gameshow techniques.
Also while I am at it, why doesn't the Beeb or anybody else for that
matter, redress the balance between bad news(content) and good news.
It could be 50/50 and might well create a shift towards positivity in
the nation.
Beeb- don't pander to the lowest common denominator, strive to do
what is ultimately best and be recognised for it.
Now I feel better!!!!
-
Robin,
Isle of Wight.
U.K.
Philip Blair
On Mon, 10 May 1999 23:46:55 +0100, "Nick Jeffery"
<ni...@disa.co.uk> wrote:
>On a more personal note, I'm somewht dismayed at this new effort. Reminds me
>of the [ghastly] N24 too much... :o) - Oh, and I prefered the old colours.
>But I suppose they'll grow on me....
Does anyone else find that the beige set and orange chairs
remind them of a Monty Python set from the early 1970s?
All we need are a few curtains in orange with massive flower
prints on them and the illusion that we have stepped back in
time would be complete. The money that the revamp cost would
probably fund a major drama, nature programme or indeed
Radio 3 for a whole year.
It would appear, at present, that the BBC is more than
willing to pour money into superficial elements while
putting up with any old rubbish in the more substantial
areas where it really matters. I believe that this is a
general thing across many organisations and that it has it's
origins in Thatcherism. There must be a thesis in that idea,
somewhere.
Regards,
Philip
bla...@iol.ie
Keith Mendum
>
[snip]
> It would appear, at present, that the BBC is more than
> willing to pour money into superficial elements while
> putting up with any old rubbish in the more substantial
> areas where it really matters. I believe that this is a
> general thing across many organisations and that it has it's
> origins in Thatcherism. There must be a thesis in that idea,
> somewhere.
'Presentation is all' as my son's CDT teacher told us when complaining
about the son's handwriting, 'the content almost doesn't matter'. Nuff
sed about the state of teaching and Britain, I think. Sad really.
--
Keith Mendum
My opinions, not Shell's
Check addresses before emailing me.
Mark Beecham
<eeeek_my_address_...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Theme music is very good though :-)
Yeah! Sounds like a dance version of the time pips!
Andy Guilbert
>On a more personal note, I'm somewht dismayed at this new effort. Reminds me
>of the [ghastly] N24 too much... :o) - Oh, and I prefered the old colours.
>But I suppose they'll grow on me....
>
old one"....4 years not noticing....a month yelling "yuck, preferred
the old one"....4 years not noticing...."a month yelling, yuck" etc.
etc. etc.
It's all to do with comfort. Once our eyes get accustomed to something
any change jars and we almost invariably hate it.
Andy
Sharif Shahwan
Keith Mendum wrote:
>'Presentation is all' as my son's CDT teacher told us when complaining
>about the son's handwriting, 'the content almost doesn't matter'. Nuff
>sed about the state of teaching and Britain, I think. Sad really.
Unfortunately, it's also how most people think. The majority off people
will not persevere with studying the content of something if it doesn't have
some sort of instant appeal in it's presentation.
Sharif Shahwan
Andy Guilbert wrote:
Actually, I've felt that the BBC1 News has been in need of a visual change
for quite some time; That whole blue thing thay had going was starting to
get on my nerves somewhat, and when N24 came along, I felt it was a breath
of fresh air and had a much better style and presentation. It looked more
clean and professional. I was hoping that the BBC1 revamp would be better
and more subtle than the rather poor overly colourful attempt from ITN, and
it has been. Sky News doesn't really look all that different to the way it
was when it started 10 years ago, really.
Mainly, I'm just chuffed to see Huw Edwards in the driving seat. I liked
him before, but he went way up in my estimation after his excellent
presentation of the Welsh Assembly election.
Sharif
As the (updated) old saying says:
"Leave a million monkeys with a million computers, and eventually they will
write the greatest literary work in history"
The internet has disproved this theory.
Peter Pratten
rif.s...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>I was hoping that the BBC1 revamp would be better
>and more subtle than the rather poor overly colourful attempt from ITN, and
>it has been.
I was hoping it would go widescreen at the same time.
--
Peter Pratten
Pete
Philip Blair wrote in message <373a0337...@news.enterprise.net>...
>All we need are a few curtains in orange with massive flower
>prints on them and the illusion that we have stepped back in
>time would be complete. The money that the revamp cost would
>probably fund a major drama, nature programme or indeed
>Radio 3 for a whole year.
>
>willing to pour money into superficial elements while
>putting up with any old rubbish in the more substantial
>areas where it really matters. I believe that this is a
>general thing across many organisations and that it has it's
>origins in Thatcherism. There must be a thesis in that idea,
>somewhere.
>
>
>Philip
>bla...@iol.ie
Do you have an insite into the corporation. Im just wondering where they are
spending their money (should that be our money?) I dont really see any
improvements in the beebs output over the last few years. It seems that they
churn out a costume drama and one (if that) good Nature prog and then sit
back on the laurels of the old *Auntie Beeb* reputation on the fifties and
sixties. Maybe that is where they are heading with the new News set - the
fifties. If they spend any more of the licence fee on crap digital
channels - what are they going to show on them that will get any viewers. I
think they are spreading themselves a bit thin now. why not go back to what
they are good at - being a really good public service broadcaster - cut down
on all the overheads of six (I think) TV networks and run two or three
really well - with a bit of money left over so they can bid for the big
events. Sorry - sort of rambelled off there. FWIW I like the new set apart
from the prjected News room of the fifties (Complete with colour cast)
behind the Newsreader. ;o)
Pete
:o)
Pete
Peter Pratten <$pp{02}$@pratten.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>I was hoping
that the BBC1 revamp would be better
>>and more subtle than the rather poor overly colourful attempt from ITN,
and
>>it has been.
>
>I was hoping it would go widescreen at the same time.
>--
>Peter Pratten
Why didnt the British broadcasters go for High Definition TV which was all
the rage about ten years ago when 16:9 first started to pop up. If your
going to go to all the trouble of changing all the TV sets in the country
and all the equipment used to make to programmes why not take it all up a
level in quality as well?
Roderick Stewart
> Why didnt the British broadcasters go for High Definition TV which was all
> the rage about ten years ago when 16:9 first started to pop up. If your
> going to go to all the trouble of changing all the TV sets in the country
> and all the equipment used to make to programmes why not take it all up a
> level in quality as well?
>
Because an insufficiently cost-effective number of people actually want it.
Most broadcast material is nowhere near the quality that would be possible
within the existing transmission system (and digital transmission has,
ironically, made it worse for analogue viewers, i.e. the majority who pay
for it), but people are apparently content to continue watching anyway as
long as the program material is to their liking. So what would be the point
of spending more money on a better system that wouldn't be properly used
either?
Rod.
Martin Underwood
Roderick Stewart <rj...@crosby.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000116b.0049b330@mainbox...
Or to put it another way, people seem to want quantity not (technical)
quality!
Interesting that the US is a long way ahead of Europe in the introduction of
HDTV. You'd think the "quantity not quality" argument would apply even more
to US audiences! ;-)
Paul Martin
>Interesting that the US is a long way ahead of Europe in the introduction of
>HDTV. You'd think the "quantity not quality" argument would apply even more
>to US audiences! ;-)
Is that anything like the "Music. Not music" slogan that Key103 was
launched with? :-)
--
Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net>
at home, swap dash to dot to email.
mark horsman
VE***THIS***talk21.com> writes
>Why didnt the British broadcasters go for High Definition TV which was all
>the rage about ten years ago when 16:9 first started to pop up. If your
>going to go to all the trouble of changing all the TV sets in the country
>and all the equipment used to make to programmes why not take it all up a
>level in quality as well?
>
--
mark horsman
charles.hope
Pete <pdj1@***REMOVE***THIS***talk21.com> wrote:
> Why didnt the British broadcasters go for High Definition TV which was
> all the rage about ten years ago when 16:9 first started to pop up. If
> your going to go to all the trouble of changing all the TV sets in the
> country and all the equipment used to make to programmes why not take it
> all up a level in quality as well?
One goodreason is bandwidth. All the original demos were of full
bandwidth material obtained from 4 broadcast standard VCRs running in
sync. Interestingly enough, when I was showing off the concept at
Wimbledon with live pictures from Centre Court (about 8 years ago) most
people who saw the results didn't think that it was television - the
pictures were too good. But who could afford it?
Instead of four programmes on one DTTV channel you could have one high
definition service, again who could afford it?
--
From West Horsley (KT24)
Paul Ratcliffe
>Do you have an insite into the corporation. Im just wondering where they are
>spending their money (should that be our money?) I dont really see any
>improvements in the beebs output over the last few years. It seems that they
Hmm, off the top of my head and in no particular order, let's see:
Investment in digital studios, scanners and infrastructure
News 24
BBC Choice
Regional subtitling
Regional Ceefax
Online services
D.G's large pay increase
ENPS
Digital terrestrial
Botched move of journos from BH to White City
>I think they are spreading themselves a bit thin now. why not go back to what
>they are good at - being a really good public service broadcaster - cut down
>on all the overheads of six (I think) TV networks and run two or three
>really well - with a bit of money left over so they can bid for the big
>events. Sorry - sort of rambelled off there. FWIW I like the new set apart
It is strange, is it not, that in the times of revenue decreasing (or perhaps
I mean not increasing) in real terms, that output has diversified into all
manner of minority interests i.e. most of the above. How many of those mean
much to the average punter?
When you are (allegedly) strapped for cash, I would've thought you'd concentrate
on your core business which is producing TV and radio programmes people want to
watch and listen to. When this goes to pot (hmm, bad choice of phrase given
recent events!), you are a bit stuck.
charles.hope
Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 1999 00:13:23 +0100, Pete <pd...@talk21.com> wrote:
> >Do you have an insite into the corporation. Im just wondering where
> >they are spending their money (should that be our money?) I dont really
> >see any improvements in the beebs output over the last few years. It
> >seems that they
> Hmm, off the top of my head and in no particular order, let's see:
> Investment in digital studios, scanners and infrastructure
> News 24
> BBC Choice
> Regional subtitling
> Regional Ceefax
> Online services
> D.G's large pay increase
> ENPS
> Digital terrestrial
> Botched move of journos from BH to White City
You've missed employing consultants to tell them what to do.
And Digital Audio Broadcasting
Pete
charles.hope wrote in message <4906d4248dc...@argonet.co.uk>...
>In article <slrn7kgbcv...@news.pr.network>,
> Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hmm, off the top of my head and in no particular order, let's see:
>> Investment in digital studios, scanners and infrastructure
>> News 24
>> Botched move of journos from BH to White City
>
>You've missed employing consultants to tell them what to do.
>
>
>And Digital Audio Broadcasting
>
>--
>From West Horsley (KT24)
Why is it the punters never complain about all this money spending on things
that have no real importance - like moving people from office to office, has
the BBC forgotten its policy about being accountable. No doubt new
scanners/studios with digital technology is a good thing (probably) but no
one has yet come up with a good reason to have seven or eight Networks on
digital broadcasting systems from the beeb that essentially show repeats of
what has already been on the standard two Networks. Why should I pay more
money to see programmes that are already available. I have seen Choice and
News24 and the only new stuff on Choice was hardly worth the effort of
switching on never mind actaully watching. Now before someone runs in with a
flame thrower - I know it is a fledgling Network and I know that there is
not a lot of money and I know its a new venture for Auntie BUT if you are
going to do something why can you not attempt to do it properly? If I want
to watch a programme about Behind the scenes I want to see something that is
easy to watch, that is shot in such a way that you can see what is going on
and has all the information put across in laymans terms so anyone can see
what work goes into making a drama or whatever. What you get is some
producers home video of his day on the set - leave this stuff to Youve been
Framed please. I have no complaint about improving the system so that the
customer ie licence payer gets his value for money its just that the people
in charge should stand back a bit sometime and observe what is happening to
broadcasting as a whole.
Pete
Paul Martin
>You've missed employing consultants to tell them what to do.
>And Digital Audio Broadcasting
Very nice, but it'll be a few years before the masses can afford it.
Chicken and egg situation.
Richard H. Reepe
<rj...@crosby.u-net.com> writes
>In article <7hstas$9mo$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>, Pete wrote:
>
>> Why didnt the British broadcasters go for High Definition TV which was all
>> the rage about ten years ago when 16:9 first started to pop up. If your
>> going to go to all the trouble of changing all the TV sets in the country
>> and all the equipment used to make to programmes why not take it all up a
>> level in quality as well?
>>
Er...what? - That's radical !! You mean, actually do it write?
>Because an insufficiently cost-effective number of people actually want it.
Untrue... I want it - and that's what counts! I've been dreaming of the
day when I can actually see "the chalk dust" at Wimbledon, the tyre ware
of Formula One, count the blackheads on Kate Moss's nose, etc. since I
was at school (in the '50's if you must know!).
I do agree that current technology is very under stressed and that some
special programs (recorded on HDTV equipment) prove this by looking far
better than they have any right to when viewed on my "standard" TV
equipment. But surely HDTV for the masses is a chicken-and-egg thing;
there's no point doing it if no-one can receive it, and there's no point
trying to receive it if no-one is broadcasting it!
What we need is a well thought out standard that everyone can support
(ha ha, there's always a catch!), that is easy to implement (get
everyone using the same chip-set) and then shove it into all the TV sets
at minimal extra cost without asking (unlike teletext, which still costs
a packet for some reason). Why is this so difficult?
Lets look at costs. All PC's you buy today have VGA monitors that
support 600x800 resolution at 85 flicker-free Hz. (that's about twice TV
resolution and it's non-interlaced). 17 inch is standard on budget PC's
and 19 inch monitors are becoming standard and are available for sub 300
pounds. Within the next two years the Seiko/Epson LEP displays (light
emitting plastic) will be common place on TV's and PC monitors for less
than 10% the production costs of CRT's. The UHF tuner assembly is now
almost a black box item and obscenely cheap. It requires only a few
tweaks to allow the tuner to pick up HDTV signals (if they were
available). Before very much longer we are going to see Home
Entertainment Consoles which are integrated PCTV devices sporting 1GHz
Pentium III CPU's. It's going to look rather silly when you can play
Tomb Raider 5 at 1200x1600 in 16 million colours at 85Hz but have to
watch Countdown in glorious 312.5x400 @ 25 Hz.
Come to think of it, why are we still sodding about with integrated TV's
anyway? I already have my TV plugged into my Naim amps so I can bypass
those nasty little squawk boxes that sit in the TV case. What I really
want is a TV box with no screen or speaker at all. I just want a tuner
that can pick up Analogue and Digital transmissions from Aerial or
Satellite Dish or Video recorder and output it to a VGA socket for the
pictures and a pair of proper phono connectors (for Nicam) or DIN
connectors (for Dolby-S) for the sound. The beauty of this kind of
solution is that is practically standards proof! Screen resolution
changes? Get a new VGA card fitted. Dolby out, MPEG in? fit a new sound
card. New transmission medium? okay fit a new tuner card! Sorted!!
I currently go to the cinema once a week to see a film. I don't really
want to go. It's a long way off, I get home late, there's chewing gum on
the seats, sometimes we get free tickets because the film was out of
focus or the sound went off at some point. But it's still better than
watching the crud we have to put up with in our living rooms.
Come on TV industry, get your thumb out of your bum and give us what we
want!
--
Richard H. Reepe e-mail ric...@injunea.demon.co.uk
Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
>You've missed employing consultants to tell them what to do.
>And Digital Audio Broadcasting
Oh, yep, another couple of obvious ones.
The other one is that they've been paying out lots of money to racks engineers
so that they can get totally pissed before trying to do cricket. Well, that's
what it looks like from here anyway, if Saturday's crap was anything to go by.
>From West Horsley (KT24)
From South West Bristol (BS48)
Jerome O'Donohoe
> The other one is that they've been paying out lots of money to racks engineers
> so that they can get totally pissed before trying to do cricket. Well, that's
> what it looks like from here anyway, if Saturday's crap was anything to go by.
Seconded. My mate is a vison supervisor & cricket fan. I was watching
it with him. I merely winced whilst he screamed in pain at that shite.
--
Jerome O'Donohoe, Broadcast Sound Editor/Mixer
jer...@odonohoe.demon.co.uk
------------now iMac powered!!!---------------
David Sweeney
channel and I think BBC News 24 is fairly good - in my view much better than
Sky or CNN. I want Parliamentary coverage and get that from the BBC on DTT
although I'd like video as well as Audio. I've really appreciated some of
the Learning stuff overnight on BBC2 - Bitesize for my teenager - and am
looking forward to BBC Knowledge which looks to be a genuinely innovative
approach to learning. I've enjoyed some of the new material on Choice but
really appreciate some of the Pick of the Weeks stuff which means I don't
have to worry about videoing stuff nearly so much.
On the radio, 5live has developed well and they have worked hard on 1 and 2.
Sure they have messed plenty up but I think they've invested well in their
new channels.
David
Pete
David Sweeney wrote in message <7icgcv$e8s$2...@us1.rhbnc.ac.uk>...
>There's just a hint of a 'damn everything they do' here. I want a news
>channel and I think BBC News 24 is fairly good - in my view much better
than
>Sky or CNN. I want Parliamentary coverage and get that from the BBC on DTT
>although I'd like video as well as Audio. I've really appreciated some of
>the Learning stuff overnight on BBC2 - Bitesize for my teenager - and am
<SNIP>
>Sure they have messed plenty up but I think they've invested well in their
>new channels.
>
>David
OK I may have come across at the start of the post as Damn all that is new -
but I am not saying that all the output is bad, what I am saying is that a
lot of it is good but it is pulled down by shoddy productions usually put
onto the new networks to fill the space that they have created. BBC Learning
Zone is very good - It fills a good three or four hours a night - about 24
hours a week plus another 15 to 20 hours of school programming throughout
the day. At the most there is 50 hours of Educational material broadcast on
the analogue networks during the week. Even if you repeat all of it it will
hardly sustain a new channel all to itself - They will fill the space but I
bet it wont be as good as what we see at the moment. The Education
department will hardly be given a large budget just to help it fill the new
BBC Knowledge channel. I just feel that they are spreading themselves a bit
thin. The Beeb always was ahead of its time in research and development of
new technology - It would be such a loss to see it go down hill because it
tried to do too much. The BBC used to be the worlds best broadcasting and
production company - I fear that that title has been eroded over the past
years as we sit and watch repeats of repeats - any programme which makes you
sit up and watch appears to have just been commissioned by a BBC department
and made by somebody else. Well at least the ideas are still there. A bit
negative I know but I dont like to see all those £100 licence fees going to
waste by moving people from office to office or by painting all the Outside
Broadcast Trucks White - lets see some good programming covering a wide
range of tastes.
Pete
:o)
M.J.Powell
<ab...@orac.clara.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 23 May 1999 19:09:48 +0100, charles.hope <charle...@argonet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>You've missed employing consultants to tell them what to do.
>>And Digital Audio Broadcasting
>
>Oh, yep, another couple of obvious ones.
>
>so that they can get totally pissed before trying to do cricket. Well, that's
>what it looks like from here anyway, if Saturday's crap was anything to go by.
I always thought that 'Auto-iris' was NBG.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Roderick Stewart
> Lets look at costs. All PC's you buy today have VGA monitors that
> support 600x800 resolution at 85 flicker-free Hz. (that's about twice TV
> resolution and it's non-interlaced). 17 inch is standard on budget PC's
> and 19 inch monitors are becoming standard and are available for sub 300
> pounds. Within the next two years the Seiko/Epson LEP displays (light
> emitting plastic) will be common place on TV's and PC monitors for less
> than 10% the production costs of CRT's.
The problem is not the cost of manufacturing the equipment itself, which,
as you point out, could easily be made using technology that is available
now. The main difficulty with implementing new standards on a broadcasting
system, as opposed to a one-off desktop computer system is maintaining the
service for the millions of customers already in existence, and who are
paying for the service.
> The UHF tuner assembly is now
> almost a black box item and obscenely cheap. It requires only a few
> tweaks to allow the tuner to pick up HDTV signals (if they were
> available).
>
True, but it costs considerably more to find the bandwidth to transmit the
signals. Unless you're going to use a lot of bit-rate reduction, in which
case, what's the point of high definition?
Rod.
Steve Uzochukwu
(Jerome O'Donohoe) wrote:
>Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The other one is that they've been paying out lots of money to racks engineers
>> so that they can get totally pissed before trying to do cricket. Well, that's
>> what it looks like from here anyway, if Saturday's crap was anything to go by.
>
Lots of money? I wish!! But then I'm not doing cricket.
>Seconded. My mate is a vison supervisor & cricket fan. I was watching
>it with him. I merely winced whilst he screamed in pain at that shite.
>
So you'll be naming names then? ;-)
****************************************************
Steve Uzochukwu, Freelance Vision Engineer.
http://homepages.which.net/~steveu/index.htm
E-mail: ste...@which.net SMS: +44 973 713120
****************************************************
Paul Ratcliffe
<rhr...@injunea.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>pictures and a pair of proper phono connectors (for Nicam) or DIN
>connectors (for Dolby-S) for the sound. The beauty of this kind of
"Proper phono or DIN connectors". Bit of an oxymoron there <giggle>.
You'll be wanting SCARTs next.
Tony Quinn
<ste...@which.net> writes
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 22:06:40 +0100, jer...@odonohoe.demon.co.uk
>(Jerome O'Donohoe) wrote:
>
>>Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The other one is that they've been paying out lots of money to racks engineers
>>> so that they can get totally pissed before trying to do cricket. Well, that's
>>> what it looks like from here anyway, if Saturday's crap was anything to go by.
>>
>
>Lots of money? I wish!! But then I'm not doing cricket.
>
>>Seconded. My mate is a vison supervisor & cricket fan. I was watching
>>it with him. I merely winced whilst he screamed in pain at that shite.
>>
>
>So you'll be naming names then? ;-)
Any clue as to which truck we're dealing with here? Is it the new C............
vehicle by any chance?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Quinn --- The Voice Of Insanity
replies to to...@sixpints.demon.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Uzochukwu
Ratcliffe) wrote:
>"Proper phono or DIN connectors". Bit of an oxymoron there <giggle>.
>You'll be wanting SCARTs next.
Please, no, no. The last time oxymoron was used on this group it led
to a week long flame war..... ;-)
Gareth Rowlands
> The other one is that they've been paying out lots of money to racks engineers
> so that they can get totally pissed before trying to do cricket. Well, that's
> what it looks like from here anyway, if Saturday's crap was anything to go by.
I confess ...
I was on racks at Worcester on Saturday for the Zimbabwe v Sri Lanka match
enduring some very bad racking weather. Sorry to have let you down if it
was this match you were referring to, although I have seen much worse in
similar circumstances.
What is out of our control on the cricket are the four 'Run-Out' cameras,
square on to the stumps, and which appear as a single pre-switched feed on the
BBC mixer. These are industrial type cameras in 'security' housings, and
their non-BBC operator has no control of Iris, colour balance etc. in his
truck. They are not matched to themselves or the BBC output.
BTW - None of us got away to the pub :-(
Cheers !
Gareth.
Jerome O'Donohoe
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 22:06:40 +0100, jer...@odonohoe.demon.co.uk (Jerome
> O'Donohoe) wrote:
>
> >Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> The other one is that they've been paying out lots of money to racks
> >> engineers so that they can get totally pissed before trying to do
> >> cricket. Well, that's what it looks like from here anyway, if
> >> Saturday's crap was anything to go by.
> >
>
> Lots of money? I wish!! But then I'm not doing cricket.
>
> >Seconded. My mate is a vison supervisor & cricket fan. I was watching
> >it with him. I merely winced whilst he screamed in pain at that shite.
> >
>
> So you'll be naming names then? ;-)
I never reveal my sources :-)
Jerome O'Donohoe
> I confess ...
>
> I was on racks at Worcester on Saturday for the Zimbabwe v Sri Lanka match
> enduring some very bad racking weather. Sorry to have let you down if it
> was this match you were referring to, although I have seen much worse in
> similar circumstances.
You are relieved of responsibilty in this case, at least as far as I am
concerned :-), don't know about Paul!
I was watcing the England/SA game
> What is out of our control on the cricket are the four 'Run-Out' cameras,
> square on to the stumps, and which appear as a single pre-switched feed on the
> BBC mixer. These are industrial type cameras in 'security' housings, and
> their non-BBC operator has no control of Iris, colour balance etc. in his
> truck. They are not matched to themselves or the BBC output.
The most obvious problems to me on Eng/SA were the main view of the
pitch (whilst bowling was going on)...much racking down whilst the
camera was on air, then a fair bit of urgent racking on the cameras out
at the boundary when it got hit that far. I could easily put it down to
too many cameras & not enough eyes & arms, in which case there should be
more eyes & arms :-). Has the number of cameras gone up when operator
numbers have gone down? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
>
> BTW - None of us got away to the pub :-(
That's a shame. I bet you needed it...
BTW, very good of you to 'fess up to something that wasn't your fault!
No-one seems to want to carry any sort of can these days. You could
have just kept quiet!
mark horsman
<ste...@which.net> writes
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 19:17:26 GMT, ab...@orac.clara.co.uk (Paul
>Ratcliffe) wrote:
>
>>"Proper phono or DIN connectors". Bit of an oxymoron there <giggle>.
>>You'll be wanting SCARTs next.
>
>Please, no, no. The last time oxymoron was used on this group it led
>to a week long flame war..... ;-)
>
--
mark horsman
Paul Ratcliffe
>Lots of money? I wish!! But then I'm not doing cricket.
Perhaps I should have included <Sarcasm> </Sarcasm> tags?
Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
>I always thought that 'Auto-iris' was NBG.
Hmmm, so the auto-iris circuit has got a 5 second lag on it which is activated
by the cue from the mixer, and alternates between making very dark pictures
brighter and very bright pictures darker?
M.J.Powell
O'Donohoe <jer...@odonohoe.demon.co.uk> writes
>Gareth Rowlands <gar...@lightfox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I confess ...
>>
>> I was on racks at Worcester on Saturday for the Zimbabwe v Sri Lanka match
>> enduring some very bad racking weather. Sorry to have let you down if it
>> was this match you were referring to, although I have seen much worse in
>> similar circumstances.
>
>You are relieved of responsibilty in this case, at least as far as I am
>concerned :-), don't know about Paul!
>
>I was watcing the England/SA game
>
>> What is out of our control on the cricket are the four 'Run-Out' cameras,
>> square on to the stumps, and which appear as a single pre-switched feed on the
>> BBC mixer. These are industrial type cameras in 'security' housings, and
>> their non-BBC operator has no control of Iris, colour balance etc. in his
>> truck. They are not matched to themselves or the BBC output.
>
>The most obvious problems to me on Eng/SA were the main view of the
>pitch (whilst bowling was going on)...much racking down whilst the
>camera was on air, then a fair bit of urgent racking on the cameras out
>at the boundary when it got hit that far. I could easily put it down to
>too many cameras & not enough eyes & arms, in which case there should be
>more eyes & arms :-). Has the number of cameras gone up when operator
>numbers have gone down? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
You should have tried racking 4 IO cameras on an Ad-Mag in the old days!
(Including 'sit-and-clip' for captions)
The prog only lasted about 7 minutes but you were wet through at the
end.
Mike
M.J.Powell
<rub...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <slrn7kjdt2...@news.pr.network>, on Tue, 25 May 1999
>19:17:26 GMT, ab...@orac.clara.co.uk (Paul Ratcliffe) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"Proper phono or DIN connectors". Bit of an oxymoron there <giggle>.
>>You'll be wanting SCARTs next.
>
Own up! WHO stood on this MUSA?
Mike
>
--
M.J.Powell.
Tony Quinn
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>The most obvious problems to me on Eng/SA were the main view of the
>>pitch (whilst bowling was going on)...much racking down whilst the
>>camera was on air, then a fair bit of urgent racking on the cameras out
>>at the boundary when it got hit that far. I could easily put it down to
>>too many cameras & not enough eyes & arms, in which case there should be
>>more eyes & arms :-). Has the number of cameras gone up when operator
>>numbers have gone down? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
>
>You should have tried racking 4 IO cameras on an Ad-Mag in the old days!
>
>(Including 'sit-and-clip' for captions)
>
>The prog only lasted about 7 minutes but you were wet through at the
>end.
Studio 4 by any chance, Mike?
Paul Ratcliffe
>
> >You'll be wanting SCARTs next.
>
> Some C**t's Already Ruined This connector.
Yep, I always think of you when these connectors are mentioned :-)
M.J.Powell
<to...@sixpints.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <P0vg8PAo...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>, M.J.Powell
><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>>The most obvious problems to me on Eng/SA were the main view of the
>>>pitch (whilst bowling was going on)...much racking down whilst the
>>>camera was on air, then a fair bit of urgent racking on the cameras out
>>>at the boundary when it got hit that far. I could easily put it down to
>>>too many cameras & not enough eyes & arms, in which case there should be
>>>more eyes & arms :-). Has the number of cameras gone up when operator
>>>numbers have gone down? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
>>
>>You should have tried racking 4 IO cameras on an Ad-Mag in the old days!
>>
>>(Including 'sit-and-clip' for captions)
>>
>>The prog only lasted about 7 minutes but you were wet through at the
>>end.
>
>Studio 4 by any chance, Mike?
Studio 3 at TWW!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Tony Quinn
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Studio 4 by any chance, Mike?
>
>Studio 3 at TWW!
Roy Smith and Co. didn't tell me you were ex-TWW. I only know of your
Manchester exploits.......
M.J.Powell
<to...@sixpints.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <9IJsTSA0...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>, M.J.Powell
><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Studio 4 by any chance, Mike?
>>
>>Studio 3 at TWW!
>
>Roy Smith and Co. didn't tell me you were ex-TWW. I only know of your
>Manchester exploits.......
For God's sake don't tell anybody.......I've got a good reputation now.
--
M.J.Powell.
Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
>I was on racks at Worcester on Saturday for the Zimbabwe v Sri Lanka match
>enduring some very bad racking weather. Sorry to have let you down if it
>was this match you were referring to, although I have seen much worse in
>similar circumstances.
No, I was referring to the England-South Africa game. Sorry, should have
made that clear. I don't recall seeing any of the other match.
Out of interest, how many cameras and how many VOs on one of these?
>What is out of our control on the cricket are the four 'Run-Out' cameras,
>square on to the stumps, and which appear as a single pre-switched feed on the
>BBC mixer. These are industrial type cameras in 'security' housings, and
>their non-BBC operator has no control of Iris, colour balance etc. in his
>truck. They are not matched to themselves or the BBC output.
Yes, obviously not broadcast quality kit. The few times I have seen them cut
up, they looked extremely blue and soggy, not to mention the questionable
framing.
>BTW - None of us got away to the pub :-(
Afterwards, surely? :-)
Pete
Batch wrote in message <37572ced...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>SW4, where are you now?
>
Which scanner is that?
Pete
M.J.Powell
<ab...@orac.clara.co.uk> writes
And who was driving in the Sri Lanka match? Dullest pictures I have ever
seen!
--
M.J.Powell.
Pete
>
>It was a Type 7, delivered to BBC Bristol, as a replacement for BLU
>[Bristol Lightweight Unit]. I claim the [dubious] fame for re-naming
>Bristol's units :-)
>
>The Type 7 became SW4.
>
>The basis for the naming convention was [like me] quite simple. SW for
>South West, and the number denoted the usual complement of cameras.
>
OK it was a Type7 4 channel unit. It wasnt CMCR55 by any chance was it?
Pete
Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
>>SW4, where are you now?
>
>Which scanner is that?
That was the local name for a Type 7 scanner based in Bristol until November
92. I think it was either CMCR 54 or 56.
Gareth Rowlands
Jerome wrote:
> You are relieved of responsibilty in this case, at least as far as I am
> concerned :-), don't know about Paul!
Apologies to all for getting the attributions wrong .... If Tony Lennon
is lurking then we may see a new BECTU poster campaign - "For him,
16 hour days meant an end to posting to USENET" !
> I could easily put it down to too many cameras & not enough eyes & arms,
Each engineer usually gets four cameras to rack, on one newer truck it
can be five ! It's not too bad if you have a good Director who's
calling who's next, but if you get four fielding cameras all following
the ball then it can be too difficult for all concerned to predict which
camera will get the red light.
Boundaries in the shadows are the worst. On one match last year I made
the Duty Engineer's log for "consistently bad racking". What happened
was that one ball hit a shadow lurking just inside the boundary rope, and
although the ball was visible, no one could tell whether it was a four
or a six because the ball had hit the ground when the shutter "wasn't
looking". The same shot was replayed about fifteen times throughout the
course of the day (the match was rather dull too !)
> No-one seems to want to carry any sort of can these days. You could
> have just kept quiet!
Accepting responsibility is a good example to set to Management !
Cheers !
Gareth.
Gareth Rowlands
ab...@orac.clara.co.uk (Paul Ratcliffe) asked:
> Out of interest, how many cameras and how many VOs on one of these?
Some matches are eight 'real' cameras, others twelve - plus the four
'Run-Outs' and the two stumps. One VO per four 'real' cameras !
> The few times I have seen them cut up, they looked extremely blue and
> soggy, not to mention the questionable framing.
That'd be my description of them the first time I saw them at Worcester,
they were on 'Auto White' with the only 'whites' being the ball and the
markings at the crease. Luckily they were never used.
> >BTW - None of us got away to the pub :-(
> Afterwards, surely? :-)
"The Cotswold" in Cheltenham, followed by "The Kashmir" !!!
Cheers !
Gareth.
Dave Liquorice
> Bristol's other SCU, a 2 camera capable unit, and "baby plug-in
> replacement" for BLU became SW2. The first job it did in anger was an
> FA Cup final, where I discovered that, in the final fit-out, the
> internal door handle had been carpeted over...but not before I'd
> actually closed the door from the inside, and found I had no means of
> escape <gulp>
And is now in the hands of an independant facilities company. It has been
"reworked" at little. Sound racks are now up in the luton and a sound desk
is plugged in as required on the drop down "VT" shelf. Vision control is now
in the back and another rack added for the rack monitor and CCUs etc. The
space vacated from the main rack has been taken up by 3 holes suitable for
BVW75s or digibetas etc. It's now a 4 camera unit... Last jobs I know it to
have down are HTV Wales Football and something for MTV.
A lot of the old "folklore" about how the unit worked is still in place and
the comms is basic but just about works (your in dead shit if anything fails
as you can't over patch easyly).
> The Type 7 became SW4.
Don't know where that is now, I guess Garath could track it down if anyone
could remember what CMCR number it had.
--
Cheers new...@nexus.demon.co.uk
Dave. Remove "spam" for valid email.
Gareth Rowlands
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> Don't know where that is now, I guess Garath could track it down if anyone
> could remember what CMCR number it had.
I've not heard of any ex-Bristol units being transferred to London or
Manchester.
The 'CMCR' numbers have gone a bit beserk over the last eighteen years,
and are now being omitted from the trucks when they are repainted in their
new 'Iceberg' liveries. If I hear anything about its fate, I'll report
back.
Cheers !
Gareth.
Dave Liquorice
> I've not heard of any ex-Bristol units being transferred to London or
> Manchester.
SW4 was "given back" at the end of '92. Rumour has it that it was passed on
to Northern Ireland but was returned when they couldn't make it work.
> The 'CMCR' numbers have gone a bit beserk over the last eighteen years,
> and are now being omitted from the trucks when they are repainted in their
> new 'Iceberg' liveries.
They also seem to be getting a bit lax about the unit numbers as well. One
parked up at the Welsh Assembly last week didn't have a number, at least not
in the usual places. Never did drop in on Bazza in the D^2. I kept my head
down on a 3 camera remote for the procession. B-)
Gareth Rowlands
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> SW4 was "given back" at the end of '92. Rumour has it that it was passed on
> to Northern Ireland but was returned when they couldn't make it work.
I thought that Northern Ireland still had a Type VII ?
> Never did drop in on Bazza in the D^2. I kept my head down on a 3
> camera remote for the procession. B-)
You should have called in. A lot of the retired SAs seem to be turning
up these days. Over the last few shows I've come across Plod, Fletch,
and Chundie Munday !!
Cheers !
Gareth.
Pete
Gareth Rowlands wrote in message
<19990531....@lightfox.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <nyyfbegfarkhfqrzbapbhx.fckl7r0.pminews@localhost>,
> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>
>> SW4 was "given back" at the end of '92. Rumour has it that it was passed
on
>> to Northern Ireland but was returned when they couldn't make it work.
>
>I thought that Northern Ireland still had a Type VII ?
>
mysterious SW4?
Pete
Dave Liquorice
>> Never did drop in on Bazza in the D^2. I kept my head down on a 3
>> camera remote for the procession. B-)
>
> You should have called in.
To much hassel to get down to main site and then I only knew where the
international scanner was. I presume the D^2 was lurking round the back of
the stages somewhere.
> A lot of the retired SAs seem to be turning up these days. Over the last
> few shows I've come across Plod, Fletch, and Chundie Munday !!
I may want to be retired but I can't afford that yet, still another 26 years
before HMG will pay me to stay at home. I just hope that these retirees are
doing the decent thing and charging the going rate and not undercutting
those that are still trying to earn a living...
Anyway, names I know but I doubt I ever met, I never worked with KA when I
was staff. I also suspect that "Fletch" is not the "Fletch" I know from BS
Audio Unit, retired 15+(?) years ago.
Pete
Batch wrote in message <3752fcb9...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <nyyfbegfarkhfqrzbapbhx.fckl7r0.pminews@localhost>, on Sun,
>30 May 1999 19:57:27 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
><new...@nexus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>SW4 was "given back" at the end of '92. Rumour has it that it was passed
on
>>to Northern Ireland but was returned when they couldn't make it work.
>>
>
>scheme, and the truck itself was despatched towards NI. I believe it
>made it as far as Manchester, but never crossed the water. After that,
>I'm not sure. I'll give Mike "Shirley Temple" Wallace a call, and see
>what I can find out.
<Snipped>
Was the Scanner CMCR55?
Pete
:o)
Gareth Rowlands
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> I may want to be retired but I can't afford that yet, still another 26 years
> before HMG will pay me to stay at home. I just hope that these retirees are
> doing the decent thing and charging the going rate and not undercutting
> those that are still trying to earn a living...
I think the rates have gone up a bit amongst retirees .... certainly
the retired Vision Staff are knocking 230 quid a day.
On a more sombre note:
Many readers in the UK broadcast world may be saddened by Monday's
bad news. Manchester OB Sound Sup. Steve Robertshaw was one of three
people who died in the tragic gliding accident over Derbyshire.
Gareth.
John Devine
Gareth Rowlands <gar...@lightfox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <nyyfbegfarkhfqrzbapbhx.fcmn6g0.pminews@localhost>,
> Dave Liquorice wrote:
> > I may want to be retired but I can't afford that yet, still another 26
> > years before HMG will pay me to stay at home. I just hope that these
> > retirees are doing the decent thing and charging the going rate and
> > not undercutting those that are still trying to earn a living...
> I think the rates have gone up a bit amongst retirees .... certainly
> the retired Vision Staff are knocking 230 quid a day.
That's about par for the course around here too. There were some
BECTU-approved rates for Radio freelances published in SS&R last year:
ukp156 for an 8 hour day, ukp215 for 10 and ukp273 for 12.
I'd guess the tv rates would be similar.
JD
--
John Devine (BECTU Freelance) Bolton Lancashire
dev...@argonet.co.uk
ex-BBC Manchester Audio Unit
Old-fashioned BBC engineering!
A R G O N E T = InterNet access for Acorn Computers
Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
>Was the Scanner CMCR55?
54 as I recall, BICBW.
Pete
Batch wrote in message <3757edd9...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <slrn7lbim...@news.pr.network>, on Thu, 03 Jun 1999
>18:03:25 GMT, ab...@orac.clara.co.uk (Paul Ratcliffe) wrote:
>
>>
>>>Was the Scanner CMCR55?
>>
>>54 as I recall, BICBW.
>
>
O.K. - CMCR55 *is* SW4 according to the cartoon I just found on the inside
of a locker door of the TSV during a load today. SW4 or NI2 as it has been
christened (went through a phase of being called *Britvic* until it was
comfirmed it was staying :o) ) is well and working in its bright new
livery.
Pete :o)
John Devine
Gareth Rowlands <gar...@lightfox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On a more sombre note:
> Many readers in the UK broadcast world may be saddened by Monday's
> bad news. Manchester OB Sound Sup. Steve Robertshaw was one of three
> people who died in the tragic gliding accident over Derbyshire.
> Gareth.
A tragic loss of a good friend and colleague.
BBC Manchester tell me his funeral is on Wednesday, 9th June at 1345 at the
Parish Church of St. Paul, Heaton Moor Road, Stockport.
Dave Liquorice
> The announcement about it's demise [and the fate of Bristol as a
> whole] was made just after we returned with SW4 from Holland. There
> was a thought at time to just make off with the vehicle, and either
> hide it somewhere in Europe, or perhaps drive it into the oggin on the
> way back.
And a very enjoyable OB that was as well.
> It's final outing for Bristol was an Antiques Roadshow at York, I believe.
> A very sombre derig.
But one helluva wake afterwards. I didn't find the passing of SW4 and my
employment with the BBC as distressing as the closure of Studio A earlier in
the year.