Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
why blurred sides on some (especially news) footage?
1,414 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 23, 2016, 3:20:39 AM7/23/16
to
Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
they're keeping from us.
Is it only (or mainly) a UK phenomenon? UK broadcasters seem to feel a
compulsion to fill the screen; I know that back in 4:3 days, widescreen
material was almost always shown in pan-and-scan rather than letterbox
(which was not the case elsewhere), and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or
so, old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
(sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
displeasing everybody).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If ever you see a man opening the car door for his wife, it's either a new car
or a new wife. - The Duke of Edinburgh
something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
they're keeping from us.
Is it only (or mainly) a UK phenomenon? UK broadcasters seem to feel a
compulsion to fill the screen; I know that back in 4:3 days, widescreen
material was almost always shown in pan-and-scan rather than letterbox
(which was not the case elsewhere), and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or
so, old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
(sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
displeasing everybody).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If ever you see a man opening the car door for his wife, it's either a new car
or a new wife. - The Duke of Edinburgh
tony sayer
Jul 23, 2016, 3:56:53 AM7/23/16
to
In article <zMpcR5QK...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
Course if its video obtained under rather adverse conditions i expect we
must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
Mind you before the smartphone came about you'd have to get a cameraman
down there now its almost like having a live broadcast source to
hand;!..
--
Tony Sayer
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
>something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
>vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
>
>Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
>dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
>moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
>is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
>blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
>they're keeping from us.
>
>Is it only (or mainly) a UK phenomenon? UK broadcasters seem to feel a
>compulsion to fill the screen; I know that back in 4:3 days, widescreen
>material was almost always shown in pan-and-scan rather than letterbox
>(which was not the case elsewhere), and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or
>so, old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
>(sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
>displeasing everybody).
Its shot on iphones. And the wrong way around. I've just acquired a
>something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
>vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
>
>Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
>dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
>moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
>is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
>blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
>they're keeping from us.
>
>Is it only (or mainly) a UK phenomenon? UK broadcasters seem to feel a
>compulsion to fill the screen; I know that back in 4:3 days, widescreen
>material was almost always shown in pan-and-scan rather than letterbox
>(which was not the case elsewhere), and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or
>so, old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
>(sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
>displeasing everybody).
smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
Course if its video obtained under rather adverse conditions i expect we
must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
Mind you before the smartphone came about you'd have to get a cameraman
down there now its almost like having a live broadcast source to
hand;!..
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Liquorice
Jul 23, 2016, 4:56:39 AM7/23/16
to
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:19:38 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> ... and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or so, ...
Mostly? Is there any analogue left, digits is natively 16:9, but can
have the metadat adjusted of course.
> ... old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
the metadata wrong, and you get 4:3 pillar and letter boxed or 4:3
fullscreen.
4:3 material incorporated into modern 16:9 programme is at the mercy
of the prodution. These days there is no reason to do anything other
than 4:3 pillarbox.
--
Cheers
Dave.
> ... and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or so, ...
Mostly? Is there any analogue left, digits is natively 16:9, but can
have the metadat adjusted of course.
> ... old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
> (sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
> displeasing everybody).
Most 4:3 material I see these days is 4:3 pillarbox. Unless they get
> displeasing everybody).
the metadata wrong, and you get 4:3 pillar and letter boxed or 4:3
fullscreen.
4:3 material incorporated into modern 16:9 programme is at the mercy
of the prodution. These days there is no reason to do anything other
than 4:3 pillarbox.
--
Cheers
Dave.
Roderick Stewart
Jul 23, 2016, 4:59:48 AM7/23/16
to
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:19:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
>dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
>moan, and these produce material in that format.
Only when used by somebody who doesn't know which way up to hold it.
>Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
>dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
>moan, and these produce material in that format.
Perhaps they've never noticed the shape of a TV screen, although
that's a bit hard to understand since most people spend a fair amount
of time staring at one.
Rod.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 23, 2016, 5:11:06 AM7/23/16
to
In message <nWyFVPCE...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
material, feel the need to put something blurry (sometimes even moving)
in the bits to the side of it. I'd rather just black.
(first series, fit the second)
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes:
>In article <zMpcR5QK...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
>>something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
>>vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
[]
>In article <zMpcR5QK...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
>>something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
>>vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
>Its shot on iphones. And the wrong way around. I've just acquired a
>smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
>you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
>phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
Yes, I know that ...
>smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
>you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
>phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
>
>Course if its video obtained under rather adverse conditions i expect we
>must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
>
... I'm just puzzled why the _broadcasters_, when all they have is such
>Course if its video obtained under rather adverse conditions i expect we
>must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
>
material, feel the need to put something blurry (sometimes even moving)
in the bits to the side of it. I'd rather just black.
>
>Mind you before the smartphone came about you'd have to get a cameraman
>down there now its almost like having a live broadcast source to
>hand;!..
--
>Mind you before the smartphone came about you'd have to get a cameraman
>down there now its almost like having a live broadcast source to
>hand;!..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ...
(first series, fit the second)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 23, 2016, 5:15:07 AM7/23/16
to
In message <nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@news.individual.net>,
a few 4:3 sets still in use, especially as second sets (some even LCD
ones).
>have the metadat adjusted of course.
[Can, but often isn't )-:]
Snow White, sometime this year, it came out postage-stamped if viewed on
a 4:3 set.)
mostly fill the screen, so chop off the top and bottom.
Dave Liquorice <allsortsn...@howhill.com> writes:
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:19:38 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> ... and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or so, ...
>
>Mostly? Is there any analogue left, digits is natively 16:9, but can
I was referring to what people are watching on. There are probably quite
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:19:38 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> ... and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or so, ...
>
>Mostly? Is there any analogue left, digits is natively 16:9, but can
a few 4:3 sets still in use, especially as second sets (some even LCD
ones).
>have the metadat adjusted of course.
>
>> ... old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
>> (sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
>> displeasing everybody).
>
>Most 4:3 material I see these days is 4:3 pillarbox. Unless they get
>the metadata wrong, and you get 4:3 pillar and letter boxed or 4:3
>fullscreen.
Which isn't uncommon. (Or, at worse, both: when they showed the original
>> ... old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
>> (sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
>> displeasing everybody).
>
>Most 4:3 material I see these days is 4:3 pillarbox. Unless they get
>the metadata wrong, and you get 4:3 pillar and letter boxed or 4:3
>fullscreen.
Snow White, sometime this year, it came out postage-stamped if viewed on
a 4:3 set.)
>
>4:3 material incorporated into modern 16:9 programme is at the mercy
>of the prodution. These days there is no reason to do anything other
>than 4:3 pillarbox.
>
I agree, but producers don't, at least UK ones: they feel they have to
>4:3 material incorporated into modern 16:9 programme is at the mercy
>of the prodution. These days there is no reason to do anything other
>than 4:3 pillarbox.
>
mostly fill the screen, so chop off the top and bottom.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
MB
Jul 23, 2016, 5:38:01 AM7/23/16
to
On 23/07/2016 08:51, tony sayer wrote:
> Its shot on iphones. And the wrong way around. I've just acquired a
> smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
> you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
> phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
I think many don't realise that you can turn the phone on its side and
> Its shot on iphones. And the wrong way around. I've just acquired a
> smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
> you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
> phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
still take a picture.
You get the opposite with proper cameras, many never think to turn the
camera on its side for portrait mode image.
And of course many mobile phone users only seem to use the camera for
taking 'selfies' of themselves so portrait mode is fine for them.
John Williamson
Jul 23, 2016, 5:45:06 AM7/23/16
to
On 23/07/2016 10:10, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <nWyFVPCE...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
> In message <nWyFVPCE...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
>> Course if its video obtained under rather adverse conditions i expect we
>> must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
>>
> ... I'm just puzzled why the _broadcasters_, when all they have is such
> material, feel the need to put something blurry (sometimes even moving)
> in the bits to the side of it. I'd rather just black.
They probably do it because when they don't, they get phone calls
>> must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
>>
> ... I'm just puzzled why the _broadcasters_, when all they have is such
> material, feel the need to put something blurry (sometimes even moving)
> in the bits to the side of it. I'd rather just black.
complaining about large black areas on the screen. Sometimes, you just
can't win.
Making it impossible to take portrait format video would be easy for the
cellphone makers, and the sensors are now good enough to take landscape
format video in full HD even if the phone is held in portrait position.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Brian Gaff
Jul 23, 2016, 5:47:56 AM7/23/16
to
You try getting a stills photographer to any event nowadays, they normally
ask that anyone with a smart phone takes the pictures. which I imagine from
comments I hear is why its utter crap in newspapers these days.
Some bits of losing sight are probably a godsend.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nWyFVPCE...@bancom.co.uk...
ask that anyone with a smart phone takes the pictures. which I imagine from
comments I hear is why its utter crap in newspapers these days.
Some bits of losing sight are probably a godsend.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nWyFVPCE...@bancom.co.uk...
Adrian Caspersz
Jul 23, 2016, 5:57:32 AM7/23/16
to
On 23/07/16 08:51, tony sayer wrote:
>
> Its shot on iphones. And the wrong way around. I've just acquired a
> smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
> you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
> phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
I think there will eventually be a drive to replace television screens
>
> Its shot on iphones. And the wrong way around. I've just acquired a
> smart phone a Motorola Moto G, wont give apple stuff house room, but if
> you shoot one way up then fine, but few people do that they have the
> phone the normal way up i.e. vertically and not horizontally.
to be compatible with this new format. And a market for VESA rotating
adaptor kits to retro fit old widescreen TVs.
It's in the future...
--
Adrian C
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 23, 2016, 6:29:25 AM7/23/16
to
In message <dvgsl0...@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
complaints would be lower? (Where it's obvious that it's fobile moan
sourced?)
they could then tout)?
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes:
>On 23/07/2016 10:10, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <nWyFVPCE...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
>>> Course if its video obtained under rather adverse conditions i expect we
>>> must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
>>>
>> ... I'm just puzzled why the _broadcasters_, when all they have is such
>> material, feel the need to put something blurry (sometimes even moving)
>> in the bits to the side of it. I'd rather just black.
>
>They probably do it because when they don't, they get phone calls
>complaining about large black areas on the screen. Sometimes, you just
>can't win.
Agreed (-:. Though for things like news "footage", surely the level of
>On 23/07/2016 10:10, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <nWyFVPCE...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
>>> Course if its video obtained under rather adverse conditions i expect we
>>> must be grateful for whatever footage we get!.
>>>
>> ... I'm just puzzled why the _broadcasters_, when all they have is such
>> material, feel the need to put something blurry (sometimes even moving)
>> in the bits to the side of it. I'd rather just black.
>
>They probably do it because when they don't, they get phone calls
>complaining about large black areas on the screen. Sometimes, you just
>can't win.
complaints would be lower? (Where it's obvious that it's fobile moan
sourced?)
>
>Making it impossible to take portrait format video would be easy for
>the cellphone makers, and the sensors are now good enough to take
>landscape format video in full HD even if the phone is held in portrait
>position.
>
Good points all. Wonder why they don't - at least as an option (which
>Making it impossible to take portrait format video would be easy for
>the cellphone makers, and the sensors are now good enough to take
>landscape format video in full HD even if the phone is held in portrait
>position.
>
they could then tout)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Does God believe in people?
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 23, 2016, 6:31:25 AM7/23/16
to
In message <dvgtca...@mid.individual.net>, Adrian Caspersz
And further in the future, humans will evolve to have one eye above the
other perhaps (-:? (Or an HDMI - or whatever replaces it ten generations
from now - socket in their forehead? No, by wifi ...)
other perhaps (-:? (Or an HDMI - or whatever replaces it ten generations
from now - socket in their forehead? No, by wifi ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
MB
Jul 23, 2016, 6:42:51 AM7/23/16
to
On 23/07/2016 10:47, Brian Gaff wrote:
> You try getting a stills photographer to any event nowadays, they normally
> ask that anyone with a smart phone takes the pictures. which I imagine from
> comments I hear is why its utter crap in newspapers these days.
> Some bits of losing sight are probably a godsend.
> Brian
They are often the only images available. I was listening to someone
> You try getting a stills photographer to any event nowadays, they normally
> ask that anyone with a smart phone takes the pictures. which I imagine from
> comments I hear is why its utter crap in newspapers these days.
> Some bits of losing sight are probably a godsend.
> Brian
late last night saying they had been trying to get into Munich to report
the shootings and every road had the police stopping all traffic.
In the early stages I think they did not want live coverage of areas
where anything was happening so they were limited to a handful of people
on the fringes.
The shot that used on the loop of pictures quite often and amused me,
was a looking down an alley way with an abandoned push chair. A woman
walked across with a carrier bag and seemed quite unconcerned or unaware
of the happenings!
I wonderf if the person who took the images outside MacDonald's of the
gunman was paid? His video must have been used all over the world.
Perhaps mobile phone makers should make provision to watermark with a
copyright notice!
Stephen Wolstenholme
Jul 23, 2016, 7:34:16 AM7/23/16
to
landscape are the same. There was a 3" circular screen TV in the
"collection" that was at the Rediffusion factory in Rochdale. I was
refurbishing that lot about 50 years ago but I never got the circular
one working.
Steve
--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
Mike
Jul 23, 2016, 7:50:05 AM7/23/16
to
In article <56c6pbpfeg69l9cik...@4ax.com>,
I think Dave Gorman had a rant on this, probably "Modern Life Is Good(ish)".
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
>>dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
>>moan, and these produce material in that format.
>
>Only when used by somebody who doesn't know which way up to hold it.
ITYM "9:16 pillock-box" mode.
>>Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
>>dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
>>moan, and these produce material in that format.
>
>Only when used by somebody who doesn't know which way up to hold it.
I think Dave Gorman had a rant on this, probably "Modern Life Is Good(ish)".
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
MB
Jul 23, 2016, 8:10:55 AM7/23/16
to
On 23/07/2016 12:31, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> The future "any way around" TV will be circular. That way portrait and
> landscape are the same. There was a 3" circular screen TV in the
> "collection" that was at the Rediffusion factory in Rochdale. I was
> refurbishing that lot about 50 years ago but I never got the circular
> one working.
People will have to get their old pre-WWII circular screen 405 sets out
> The future "any way around" TV will be circular. That way portrait and
> landscape are the same. There was a 3" circular screen TV in the
> "collection" that was at the Rediffusion factory in Rochdale. I was
> refurbishing that lot about 50 years ago but I never got the circular
> one working.
of the shed and get a 405 line DTT Set Top Box.
Johnny B Good
Jul 25, 2016, 7:16:18 PM7/25/16
to
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:19:38 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
> something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
> vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
>
> Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
> dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
> moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
> blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
> they're keeping from us.
>
> Is it only (or mainly) a UK phenomenon? UK broadcasters seem to feel a
> compulsion to fill the screen; I know that back in 4:3 days, widescreen
> material was almost always shown in pan-and-scan rather than letterbox
> (which was not the case elsewhere), and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or
> so, old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
> (sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
> displeasing everybody).
With regard to such mobile phone 'footage', I think the broadcasters
> Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
> something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
> vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
>
> Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
> dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
> moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
> blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
> they're keeping from us.
>
> Is it only (or mainly) a UK phenomenon? UK broadcasters seem to feel a
> compulsion to fill the screen; I know that back in 4:3 days, widescreen
> material was almost always shown in pan-and-scan rather than letterbox
> (which was not the case elsewhere), and now that we're (mostly) 16:9 or
> so, old 4:3 material is rarely shown in pillarbox, but instead cropped
> (sometimes to 14:9, thought maybe to please everybody, possibly
> displeasing everybody).
ought to simply use the black space either side to show a printed caption
to explain the reason for the "Narrow Vision" movie footage, perhaps
along the lines of the following:-
"Do not adjust your TV set. This is mobile phone footage which has been
shot in portrait mode.
In the circumstances and on our viewers' behalf, we thank the
contributor for their presence of mind in recording an event so stressful
as to make them forget to orientate their phone into landscape mode."
Such productive use of the 'Black Space' would serve two purposes, an
educational one (how to *properly* use mobile phones to record movie
clips) and a reassurance as to why their viewers' widescreen TV screens
have suddenly taken to displaying a severely pillar boxed "Narrow Screen"
movie clip. That would demonstrate the true meaning of "Public Service
Broadcasting" at its best imco. :-)
--
Johnny B Good
John Williamson
Jul 26, 2016, 4:09:04 AM7/26/16
to
On 23/07/2016 08:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
> something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
> vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
>
> Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
> dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
> moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
> blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
> they're keeping from us.
>
I have noticed that when you view portrait format video on Youtube, it
> Watching some clips of the Munich shootings this morning, I was aware of
> something I'm seeing increasingly these days: the video is a narrow
> vertical strip, with something blurred filling in the sides.
>
> Now, obviously (?), I realise that the tall thin format [ironically not
> dissimilar to Baird!] is because the material is coming from a fobile
> moan, and these produce material in that format. What I don't understand
> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
> blurry; it suggests (even if erroneously) that there is something
> they're keeping from us.
>
very often has the blurry coloured bits at the sides, so it may just be
the broadcasters taking the video from Youtube rather than the original
source.
Mark Carver
Jul 26, 2016, 9:07:32 AM7/26/16
to
On 23/07/2016 08:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> What I don't understand
> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
> blurry;
The same reason broadcasters deliberately degrade news footage older
> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
> blurry;
than a few days, by making it look like the Baird 30 line system, and
covered in noise.
Or, whenever an audio clip is played there's some faux oscilloscope
trace to presumably hold our attention.
I'm fed up up with it all, the lunatics have taken over.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
The Hemulen
Jul 26, 2016, 9:23:50 AM7/26/16
to
On 26/07/2016 14:07, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 23/07/2016 08:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> What I don't understand
>> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
>> blurry;
>
> The same reason broadcasters deliberately degrade news footage older
> than a few days, by making it look like the Baird 30 line system, and
> covered in noise.
>
> Or, whenever an audio clip is played there's some faux oscilloscope
> trace to presumably hold our attention.
>
> I'm fed up up with it all, the lunatics have taken over.
>
Fed up with it here too. In fact some of the old TV footage has such
> On 23/07/2016 08:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> What I don't understand
>> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
>> blurry;
>
> The same reason broadcasters deliberately degrade news footage older
> than a few days, by making it look like the Baird 30 line system, and
> covered in noise.
>
> Or, whenever an audio clip is played there's some faux oscilloscope
> trace to presumably hold our attention.
>
> I'm fed up up with it all, the lunatics have taken over.
>
ridiculous 'scan line effect' I reckon Mr Baird would have thought it
unacceptable.
Plus they now have to make old film footage shown look even more
scratched, blotched than it is using poxy video effects. It does look
especially stupid when completely unrelated footage has the same
sequence of hair in the gate, scratch, blob as the one before.
Tossers.
Graham.
Jul 26, 2016, 9:54:55 AM7/26/16
to
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:07:29 +0100, Mark Carver
<invalid...@gmx.net> wrote:
>On 23/07/2016 08:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> What I don't understand
>> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
>> blurry;
>
>The same reason broadcasters deliberately degrade news footage older
>than a few days, by making it look like the Baird 30 line system, and
>covered in noise.
>
>Or, whenever an audio clip is played there's some faux oscilloscope
>trace to presumably hold our attention.
>
>I'm fed up up with it all, the lunatics have taken over.
The rotating spools, or flickering peak level meters of a Uher were
<invalid...@gmx.net> wrote:
>On 23/07/2016 08:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> What I don't understand
>> is why broadcasters feel the need to fill in the sides with something
>> blurry;
>
>The same reason broadcasters deliberately degrade news footage older
>than a few days, by making it look like the Baird 30 line system, and
>covered in noise.
>
>Or, whenever an audio clip is played there's some faux oscilloscope
>trace to presumably hold our attention.
>
>I'm fed up up with it all, the lunatics have taken over.
quire interesting though.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Andy Furniss
Jul 26, 2016, 10:36:11 AM7/26/16
to
to crap bitrates, see artifacts down the sides next to the black bars.
That was mpeg2 and they use 704 now anyway, but at the time I did a test
with ffmpeg encoding and it seemed that to avoid the artifacts you had
to align to 16 pixels. I guess because mpeg2 uses 16 for motion
estimation, so the non aligned edges became expensive bit wise compared
to the main image.
Of course youtube will be using h264 or vp9 and I haven't got a clue if
the same test would show the same results with that.
John Williamson
Jul 26, 2016, 10:42:24 AM7/26/16
to
On 26/07/2016 15:36, Andy Furniss wrote:
> When the BBC used to put 704 (maybe 702) in 720 you could sometimes, due
> to crap bitrates, see artifacts down the sides next to the black bars.
> That was mpeg2 and they use 704 now anyway, but at the time I did a test
> with ffmpeg encoding and it seemed that to avoid the artifacts you had
> to align to 16 pixels. I guess because mpeg2 uses 16 for motion
> estimation, so the non aligned edges became expensive bit wise compared
> to the main image.
>
> Of course youtube will be using h264 or vp9 and I haven't got a clue if
> the same test would show the same results with that.
>
On Youtube, these are not compression artefacts, they are recognisably
> When the BBC used to put 704 (maybe 702) in 720 you could sometimes, due
> to crap bitrates, see artifacts down the sides next to the black bars.
> That was mpeg2 and they use 704 now anyway, but at the time I did a test
> with ffmpeg encoding and it seemed that to avoid the artifacts you had
> to align to 16 pixels. I guess because mpeg2 uses 16 for motion
> estimation, so the non aligned edges became expensive bit wise compared
> to the main image.
>
> Of course youtube will be using h264 or vp9 and I haven't got a clue if
> the same test would show the same results with that.
>
parts of the video shown in sync with the footage, but made fuzzy, as if
they have expanded the narrow strip to fit the normal 16:9 video format
frame, defocussed it, and then overlaid a clean, sharp version of the
video in its native format (9:16) centrally on top.
John Williamson
Jul 26, 2016, 10:58:41 AM7/26/16
to
to post videos on social media, of course.
NY
Jul 26, 2016, 10:58:48 AM7/26/16
to
"Andy Furniss" <spam@spam> wrote in message
news:s4-dnSyIgvjH6ArK...@brightview.co.uk...
(eg episodes of Dad's Army) they broadcast it as a 4:3 image in the centre
of a 16:9 frame? Other channels use the full 704/720 pixel horizontal
resolution and change the aspect ratio flag to make the TV display that 4:3
image in the centre of the 16:9 TV screen.
Doing it the BBC way, a lot of the 704-pixel horizontal resolution is wasted
on transmitting the black bars down either side, and only the centre of the
image is occupied by a much lower-resolution version of the source material.
I realise that in a mainly 16:9 programme with occasional 4:3 archive
material, you want to do it the BBC way to avoid flipping aspect ratio every
few seconds, but when it's a whole 30- or 60-minute programme, why not flip
the aspect ratio?
news:s4-dnSyIgvjH6ArK...@brightview.co.uk...
> When the BBC used to put 704 (maybe 702) in 720 you could sometimes, due
> to crap bitrates, see artifacts down the sides next to the black bars.
> That was mpeg2 and they use 704 now anyway, but at the time I did a test
> with ffmpeg encoding and it seemed that to avoid the artifacts you had
> to align to 16 pixels. I guess because mpeg2 uses 16 for motion
> estimation, so the non aligned edges became expensive bit wise compared
> to the main image.
Why is it that when BBC channels broadcast 4:3 programmes from the archive
> to crap bitrates, see artifacts down the sides next to the black bars.
> That was mpeg2 and they use 704 now anyway, but at the time I did a test
> with ffmpeg encoding and it seemed that to avoid the artifacts you had
> to align to 16 pixels. I guess because mpeg2 uses 16 for motion
> estimation, so the non aligned edges became expensive bit wise compared
> to the main image.
(eg episodes of Dad's Army) they broadcast it as a 4:3 image in the centre
of a 16:9 frame? Other channels use the full 704/720 pixel horizontal
resolution and change the aspect ratio flag to make the TV display that 4:3
image in the centre of the 16:9 TV screen.
Doing it the BBC way, a lot of the 704-pixel horizontal resolution is wasted
on transmitting the black bars down either side, and only the centre of the
image is occupied by a much lower-resolution version of the source material.
I realise that in a mainly 16:9 programme with occasional 4:3 archive
material, you want to do it the BBC way to avoid flipping aspect ratio every
few seconds, but when it's a whole 30- or 60-minute programme, why not flip
the aspect ratio?
Andy Furniss
Jul 26, 2016, 11:07:04 AM7/26/16
to
Andy Furniss
Jul 26, 2016, 11:11:24 AM7/26/16
to
NY wrote:
> I realise that in a mainly 16:9 programme with occasional 4:3 archive
> material, you want to do it the BBC way to avoid flipping aspect
> ratio every few seconds, but when it's a whole 30- or 60-minute
> programme, why not flip the aspect ratio?
Not that I watch much anymore - but yes that is annoying.
> I realise that in a mainly 16:9 programme with occasional 4:3 archive
> material, you want to do it the BBC way to avoid flipping aspect
> ratio every few seconds, but when it's a whole 30- or 60-minute
> programme, why not flip the aspect ratio?
Worse still in theory at least, I still have a plasma TV and the
instructions recommend setting pillar boxes to mid grey for prolonged
4/3 viewing which of course isn't going to work if someone has "kindly"
pre-pillarboxed it in black :-(
Vir Campestris
Jul 26, 2016, 4:17:56 PM7/26/16
to
On 26/07/2016 15:59, NY wrote:
> Doing it the BBC way, a lot of the 704-pixel horizontal resolution is
> wasted on transmitting the black bars down either side, and only the
> centre of the image is occupied by a much lower-resolution version of
> the source material.
Actually digital black compresses _really_ well. It won't be using a lot
> Doing it the BBC way, a lot of the 704-pixel horizontal resolution is
> wasted on transmitting the black bars down either side, and only the
> centre of the image is occupied by a much lower-resolution version of
> the source material.
of bandwidth.
Andy
Vir Campestris
Jul 26, 2016, 4:18:59 PM7/26/16
to
On 26/07/2016 00:16, Johnny B Good wrote:
> With regard to such mobile phone 'footage', I think the broadcasters
> ought to simply use the black space either side to show a printed caption
> to explain the reason for the "Narrow Vision" movie footage, perhaps
> along the lines of the following:-
They could even put the video at one side, and fill the rest with the
> With regard to such mobile phone 'footage', I think the broadcasters
> ought to simply use the black space either side to show a printed caption
> to explain the reason for the "Narrow Vision" movie footage, perhaps
> along the lines of the following:-
presenter... but that requires engineering knowledge, which seems to be
scarce these days.
Andy
NY
Jul 26, 2016, 4:26:22 PM7/26/16
to
"Vir Campestris" <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:MqudnchCc6DvWArK...@brightview.co.uk...
No, it won't be occupying much bandwidth, but it *will* be occupying a lot
of pixels.
If the whole frame is 704 pixels wide, it's better that all of this is used
by the visible line of the picture, whether that is stretched to fit a 16:9
picture on a 16:9 screen or whether it's kept at 4:3 in the middle of the
screen for a 4:3 picture.
The way the BBC do it, a 12x9 picture is embedded in a 16x9 frame, so of
that 704 pixels, only 3/4 * 704 = 528 pixels carry picture and the rest are
black.
news:MqudnchCc6DvWArK...@brightview.co.uk...
of pixels.
If the whole frame is 704 pixels wide, it's better that all of this is used
by the visible line of the picture, whether that is stretched to fit a 16:9
picture on a 16:9 screen or whether it's kept at 4:3 in the middle of the
screen for a 4:3 picture.
The way the BBC do it, a 12x9 picture is embedded in a 16x9 frame, so of
that 704 pixels, only 3/4 * 704 = 528 pixels carry picture and the rest are
black.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 26, 2016, 10:32:45 PM7/26/16
to
In message <dvpb6e...@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
Yes, I think that's what the broadcasters often do too. Why?
novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness. -Leo Tolstoy,
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)
Adrian Caspersz
Jul 27, 2016, 4:19:08 AM7/27/16
to
On 27/07/16 08:55, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote in news:nmvhnb$j9v$1...@dont-email.me:
> a watermark, upload it to youtube with a Google friendly headline, and
> add a caption that any television station can broadcast it without
> asking, provided they send me <some amount> to my paypal for every 10
> seconds broadcast. What would be a good rate? :)
Zero.
https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
8. Rights you licence
8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant:
to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable
licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute,
prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that Content in
connection with the provision of the Service and otherwise in connection
with the provision of the Service and YouTube's business, including
without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the
Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through
any media channels;
to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive,
royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to
use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and
perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the
Service and under these Terms.
--
Adrian C
> MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote in news:nmvhnb$j9v$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> I wonderf if the person who took the images outside MacDonald's of the
>> gunman was paid? His video must have been used all over the world.
>
> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
>> I wonderf if the person who took the images outside MacDonald's of the
>> gunman was paid? His video must have been used all over the world.
>
> a watermark, upload it to youtube with a Google friendly headline, and
> add a caption that any television station can broadcast it without
> asking, provided they send me <some amount> to my paypal for every 10
> seconds broadcast. What would be a good rate? :)
Zero.
https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
8. Rights you licence
8.1 When you upload or post Content to YouTube, you grant:
to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable
licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute,
prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that Content in
connection with the provision of the Service and otherwise in connection
with the provision of the Service and YouTube's business, including
without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the
Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through
any media channels;
to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive,
royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to
use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and
perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the
Service and under these Terms.
--
Adrian C
John Williamson
Jul 27, 2016, 4:25:41 AM7/27/16
to
"Phone footage insert", and the computer does the rest, or insert a tag
on the footage to do it automatically when it's acquired. The skill
woold be in programming the computer to do the job, and that only has to
be done once, in the factory.
John Williamson
Jul 27, 2016, 4:27:01 AM7/27/16
to
On 27/07/2016 00:02, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <dvpb6e...@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
> In message <dvpb6e...@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
>> On Youtube, these are not compression artefacts, they are recognisably
>> parts of the video shown in sync with the footage, but made fuzzy, as
>> if they have expanded the narrow strip to fit the normal 16:9 video
>> format frame, defocussed it, and then overlaid a clean, sharp version
>> of the video in its native format (9:16) centrally on top.
>>
> Yes, I think that's what the broadcasters often do too. Why?
See my post further upthread, the video has probably been grabbed from
>> parts of the video shown in sync with the footage, but made fuzzy, as
>> if they have expanded the narrow strip to fit the normal 16:9 video
>> format frame, defocussed it, and then overlaid a clean, sharp version
>> of the video in its native format (9:16) centrally on top.
>>
> Yes, I think that's what the broadcasters often do too. Why?
Youtube and is already mangled.
Roderick Stewart
Jul 27, 2016, 4:58:17 AM7/27/16
to
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:40:10 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
wrote:
>>> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
>>> a watermark, upload it to youtube with a Google friendly headline, and
>>> add a caption that any television station can broadcast it without
>>> asking, provided they send me <some amount> to my paypal for every 10
>>> seconds broadcast. What would be a good rate? :)
>>
>> Zero.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
>>
>> 8. Rights you licence
>
>OK, so youtube is out. If I were to offer it for download on my own
>website instead?
Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
and what could you do about that?
Rod.
wrote:
>>> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
>>> a watermark, upload it to youtube with a Google friendly headline, and
>>> add a caption that any television station can broadcast it without
>>> asking, provided they send me <some amount> to my paypal for every 10
>>> seconds broadcast. What would be a good rate? :)
>>
>> Zero.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
>>
>> 8. Rights you licence
>
>website instead?
Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
and what could you do about that?
Rod.
John Williamson
Jul 27, 2016, 5:05:30 AM7/27/16
to
On 27/07/2016 09:40, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Adrian Caspersz <em...@here.invalid>
> wrote in news:dvr93r...@mid.individual.net:
getting it seen by enough people who want to download it. One solution
could be to put a low quality teaser with an obvious watermark up on
Youtube with a URL linking to the full quality file on your website. but
that takes time, and if it's topical enough for news footage, you won't
have time to set it all up, even if you carry a laptop running a video
editing program with the presets already enabled.
Unless yours is the only footage available, though, the TV companies
will go for another version in that case, unless your footage contains
something that marks it out. Maybe use something like the Samsung S4
zoom phone at full HD quality and remember to always use it in landscape
position? It's actually quite a good all purpose camera with a long
optical zoom, it's just a shame the phone part is so horrible to use.
> Adrian Caspersz <em...@here.invalid>
> wrote in news:dvr93r...@mid.individual.net:
> OK, so youtube is out. If I were to offer it for download on my own
> website instead?
>
Then you can do what you wish about licencing it. The problem then is
> website instead?
>
getting it seen by enough people who want to download it. One solution
could be to put a low quality teaser with an obvious watermark up on
Youtube with a URL linking to the full quality file on your website. but
that takes time, and if it's topical enough for news footage, you won't
have time to set it all up, even if you carry a laptop running a video
editing program with the presets already enabled.
Unless yours is the only footage available, though, the TV companies
will go for another version in that case, unless your footage contains
something that marks it out. Maybe use something like the Samsung S4
zoom phone at full HD quality and remember to always use it in landscape
position? It's actually quite a good all purpose camera with a long
optical zoom, it's just a shame the phone part is so horrible to use.
NY
Jul 27, 2016, 5:06:20 AM7/27/16
to
"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
news:7g6m6d-...@wschwanke.de...
> "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:BZKdnSdvOPY65wrK...@brightview.co.uk:
Yes, I thought we were all talking about SD in this thread. The very fact
that I've referred to 704 or 720 pixels horizontal resolution makes it
obvious that it's SD, rather than HD which is 1920x1080.
>> Other channels use the full 704/720
>> pixel horizontal resolution and change the aspect ratio flag to make
>> the TV display that 4:3 image in the centre of the 16:9 TV screen.
>
> Really? That shouldn't really be possible. Are sure those are not SD
> channels? Obviusly you can have 576i 4:3, and that's how such material
> should always be handled (sadly it isn't often).
Are you saying that it's correct to broadcast 4:3 SD in a 16:9 frame (with
widescreen turned on) or are you saying that it's correct to broadcast it as
4:3 with all the frame allocated to the broadcast material (ie no black
borders) and with widescreen turned off? I'm talking about complete 4:3
programmes rather than 4:3 inserts into an otherwise 16:9 programme.
news:7g6m6d-...@wschwanke.de...
> "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:BZKdnSdvOPY65wrK...@brightview.co.uk:
>
>> Why is it that when BBC channels broadcast 4:3 programmes from the
>> archive (eg episodes of Dad's Army) they broadcast it as a 4:3 image
>> in the centre of a 16:9 frame?
>
> HD is 16:9 by definition. You can't have 4:3 HD.
>> Why is it that when BBC channels broadcast 4:3 programmes from the
>> archive (eg episodes of Dad's Army) they broadcast it as a 4:3 image
>> in the centre of a 16:9 frame?
>
Yes, I thought we were all talking about SD in this thread. The very fact
that I've referred to 704 or 720 pixels horizontal resolution makes it
obvious that it's SD, rather than HD which is 1920x1080.
>> Other channels use the full 704/720
>> pixel horizontal resolution and change the aspect ratio flag to make
>> the TV display that 4:3 image in the centre of the 16:9 TV screen.
>
> channels? Obviusly you can have 576i 4:3, and that's how such material
> should always be handled (sadly it isn't often).
Are you saying that it's correct to broadcast 4:3 SD in a 16:9 frame (with
widescreen turned on) or are you saying that it's correct to broadcast it as
4:3 with all the frame allocated to the broadcast material (ie no black
borders) and with widescreen turned off? I'm talking about complete 4:3
programmes rather than 4:3 inserts into an otherwise 16:9 programme.
MB
Jul 27, 2016, 5:14:52 AM7/27/16
to
On 27/07/2016 08:55, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote in news:nmvhnb$j9v$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote in news:nmvhnb$j9v$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> I wonderf if the person who took the images outside MacDonald's of the
>> gunman was paid? His video must have been used all over the world.
>
>> gunman was paid? His video must have been used all over the world.
>
> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
> a watermark, upload it to youtube with a Google friendly headline, and
> add a caption that any television station can broadcast it without
> asking, provided they send me <some amount> to my paypal for every 10
> seconds broadcast. What would be a good rate? :)
>
There is a guide online to the fees for use of images (not video). I
> a watermark, upload it to youtube with a Google friendly headline, and
> add a caption that any television station can broadcast it without
> asking, provided they send me <some amount> to my paypal for every 10
> seconds broadcast. What would be a good rate? :)
>
know someone who has often sees his images used by newspapers without
permission, he sends them an invoice and they pay up. I have had quite
a few in magazines but tend to bother as I know small specialist
magazines don't make a lot of money.
http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?§ion=Welcome&subsect=All&subsubs=All
MB
Jul 27, 2016, 5:21:07 AM7/27/16
to
unless you select to allow Getty Images to market them for you.
MB
Jul 27, 2016, 5:25:19 AM7/27/16
to
On 27/07/2016 09:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
> people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
> newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
> and what could you do about that?
If it is seriously newsworthy then probably best to contact an agency
> Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
> people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
> newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
> and what could you do about that?
and let them take care of that. They will obviously take a commission
but are better placed to maximise income.
The BBC don't normally pay but I don't mind them using, a cousin saw a
sequence of my pictures on BBC in Australia and some others whilst
holiday in the Canaries.
MB
Jul 27, 2016, 5:30:05 AM7/27/16
to
On 27/07/2016 10:19, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com>
> wrote in news:dvrbqn...@mid.individual.net:
> could film in portrait mode until I saw people doing it. :)
>
> My actual question is though: Would television stations go for that, and
> how much would they typically be willing to pay?
>
I remember in the days of everything being on film, the newspapers used
to advise you to telephone them immediately if you had something
seriously newsworthy. They would send a courier to collect if necessary.
I had some pictures on BBC news for several days, I was comntacted by
the ITV company trying to get me to send to them next time!
The BBC were going to use in a programme months later and send me a form
to pay me full commercial rate. They ended up not being used but
because of the circumstances I had told them to give to a relevant charity.
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com>
> wrote in news:dvrbqn...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Then you can do what you wish about licencing it. The problem then is
>> getting it seen by enough people who want to download it. One solution
>> could be to put a low quality teaser with an obvious watermark up on
>> Youtube with a URL linking to the full quality file on your website.
>
> Yes, that is probably a good idea.
>> Then you can do what you wish about licencing it. The problem then is
>> getting it seen by enough people who want to download it. One solution
>> could be to put a low quality teaser with an obvious watermark up on
>> Youtube with a URL linking to the full quality file on your website.
>
>
>> but
>> that takes time, and if it's topical enough for news footage, you
>> won't have time to set it all up, even if you carry a laptop running a
>> video editing program with the presets already enabled.
>
> An hour or two, if you're lucky enough to be close to your home.
>> but
>> that takes time, and if it's topical enough for news footage, you
>> won't have time to set it all up, even if you carry a laptop running a
>> video editing program with the presets already enabled.
>
>
>> Unless yours is the only footage available, though, the TV companies
>> will go for another version in that case, unless your footage contains
>> something that marks it out.
>
> Of course I would be the one with the best shot :-)
>> Unless yours is the only footage available, though, the TV companies
>> will go for another version in that case, unless your footage contains
>> something that marks it out.
>
>
>> Maybe use something like the Samsung S4
>> zoom phone at full HD quality and remember to always use it in
>> landscape position?
>
> I have a Motorola that does 1080p, and it never occurred to me that you
>> Maybe use something like the Samsung S4
>> zoom phone at full HD quality and remember to always use it in
>> landscape position?
>
> could film in portrait mode until I saw people doing it. :)
>
> My actual question is though: Would television stations go for that, and
> how much would they typically be willing to pay?
>
I remember in the days of everything being on film, the newspapers used
to advise you to telephone them immediately if you had something
seriously newsworthy. They would send a courier to collect if necessary.
I had some pictures on BBC news for several days, I was comntacted by
the ITV company trying to get me to send to them next time!
The BBC were going to use in a programme months later and send me a form
to pay me full commercial rate. They ended up not being used but
because of the circumstances I had told them to give to a relevant charity.
MB
Jul 27, 2016, 5:33:48 AM7/27/16
to
taken a series of stills so they ran them as a sequence which worked
quite well.
It is the immediacy that is important, I was the only person there
taking pictures and they were the only ones available connected with the
incident.
John Williamson
Jul 27, 2016, 5:36:52 AM7/27/16
to
>> ...if it's topical enough for news footage, you
hear a rumour by the bush telegraph or on Facebook.
>> Unless yours is the only footage available, though, the TV companies
>> will go for another version in that case, unless your footage contains
>> something that marks it out.
>
the documentary a few months later.
> My actual question is though: Would television stations go for that, and
> how much would they typically be willing to pay?
>
For a unique shot of a celeb doing something embarrassing, quite a lot,
which is why there's an industry full of people following celebs round
with long lenses. For a shot of a truck hitting a train or vice versa,
or even footage of a meteorite passing over a town, not so much, as
there's probably good enough dashcam footage available for free.
The only way to make any useful money is to become known as a reliable
supplier of good quality footage to your local TV company for short
human interest stories that they can just drop it in as a filler on a
quiet news day without doing anything to it, so flower shows, pet shows
and such, with an interestung commentary already there, so they can keep
their staff ready for the important stuff. In other words, make it a
profession and swallow your losses. Anything you get that's good and
important will be syndicated soon enough by the local station.
>> won't have time to set it all up, even if you carry a laptop running a
>> video editing program with the presets already enabled.
>
>> video editing program with the presets already enabled.
>
> An hour or two, if you're lucky enough to be close to your home.
>
Too slow. The news people only want footage that's there when they first
>
hear a rumour by the bush telegraph or on Facebook.
>> Unless yours is the only footage available, though, the TV companies
>> will go for another version in that case, unless your footage contains
>> something that marks it out.
>
> Of course I would be the one with the best shot :-)
>
Could be, but would you be first? Otherwise, you might only make it into
>
the documentary a few months later.
> My actual question is though: Would television stations go for that, and
> how much would they typically be willing to pay?
>
which is why there's an industry full of people following celebs round
with long lenses. For a shot of a truck hitting a train or vice versa,
or even footage of a meteorite passing over a town, not so much, as
there's probably good enough dashcam footage available for free.
The only way to make any useful money is to become known as a reliable
supplier of good quality footage to your local TV company for short
human interest stories that they can just drop it in as a filler on a
quiet news day without doing anything to it, so flower shows, pet shows
and such, with an interestung commentary already there, so they can keep
their staff ready for the important stuff. In other words, make it a
profession and swallow your losses. Anything you get that's good and
important will be syndicated soon enough by the local station.
Roderick Stewart
Jul 27, 2016, 5:39:21 AM7/27/16
to
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:56:57 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
wrote:
>> Is there any analogue left, digits is natively 16:9
>
>Oh no, there are lots of digital camcorders, camera phones, keychain
>cameras etc. who can do 4:3, sometimes only.
The chips appear to be mostly 4:3 as standard, with the output cropped
if other ratios are required. I have a Galaxy S7 phone, which is one
of the latest models, purchased partly because of the glowing reviews
it gets for its camera (which is very good indeed for a general
purpose fixed lens camera), but although it has a 16:9 screen itself,
the camera chip is clearly 4:3 and that is the shape of the still
pictures it takes by default. It can take 16:9 stills, with the same
horizontal resolution but lower vertical resolution, so it is
evidently achieving this by simply not using the available pixels
above and below the wanted 16:9 image.
This is different from some Thomson broadcast cameras I once had to
look after, during the transition from 4:3 to 16:9. The aspect ratio
was switchable, but in this case it was the horizontal portions of the
natively 16:9 chip that were blanked for shooting 4:3.
Clearly it's possible to make camera chips in either 4:3 or 16:9
ratios, and no doubt any other ratio they want. I don't know what's
standard in televison cameras these days, but for still cameras and
camera modules in phones it seems to be mostly 4:3, despite the
preponderance of 16:9 computer screens, TV screens, and the screens on
the phones themselves.
The next thing is apparently 21:9. Some screens are already in the
shops, and some programme makers are shooting material in this ratio,
so of course it doesn't fit our 16:9 screens. I suppose the industry
has to keep flogging us stuff in order to survive, so we'll probably
be stuck with various incompatibilities for ever.
Rod.
wrote:
>> Is there any analogue left, digits is natively 16:9
>
>Oh no, there are lots of digital camcorders, camera phones, keychain
>cameras etc. who can do 4:3, sometimes only.
The chips appear to be mostly 4:3 as standard, with the output cropped
if other ratios are required. I have a Galaxy S7 phone, which is one
of the latest models, purchased partly because of the glowing reviews
it gets for its camera (which is very good indeed for a general
purpose fixed lens camera), but although it has a 16:9 screen itself,
the camera chip is clearly 4:3 and that is the shape of the still
pictures it takes by default. It can take 16:9 stills, with the same
horizontal resolution but lower vertical resolution, so it is
evidently achieving this by simply not using the available pixels
above and below the wanted 16:9 image.
This is different from some Thomson broadcast cameras I once had to
look after, during the transition from 4:3 to 16:9. The aspect ratio
was switchable, but in this case it was the horizontal portions of the
natively 16:9 chip that were blanked for shooting 4:3.
Clearly it's possible to make camera chips in either 4:3 or 16:9
ratios, and no doubt any other ratio they want. I don't know what's
standard in televison cameras these days, but for still cameras and
camera modules in phones it seems to be mostly 4:3, despite the
preponderance of 16:9 computer screens, TV screens, and the screens on
the phones themselves.
The next thing is apparently 21:9. Some screens are already in the
shops, and some programme makers are shooting material in this ratio,
so of course it doesn't fit our 16:9 screens. I suppose the industry
has to keep flogging us stuff in order to survive, so we'll probably
be stuck with various incompatibilities for ever.
Rod.
NY
Jul 27, 2016, 6:15:15 AM7/27/16
to
"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
news:o0dm6d-...@wschwanke.de...
> Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote in news:g0ugpbpfva03h7oio...@4ax.com:
>
>> The next thing is apparently 21:9. Some screens are already in the
>> shops, and some programme makers are shooting material in this ratio,
>> so of course it doesn't fit our 16:9 screens. I suppose the industry
>> has to keep flogging us stuff in order to survive, so we'll probably
>> be stuck with various incompatibilities for ever.
>
> I regret widescreen television. HD is a good idea, but those
>> The next thing is apparently 21:9. Some screens are already in the
>> shops, and some programme makers are shooting material in this ratio,
>> so of course it doesn't fit our 16:9 screens. I suppose the industry
>> has to keep flogging us stuff in order to survive, so we'll probably
>> be stuck with various incompatibilities for ever.
>
> incompatible aspect ratios have created two decades of cropping, black
> bars and distorted pictures for no real reason. I see the point for
> movies, but there are solutions without changing the entire system.
What about the dreaded 14:9 compromise that was used on analogue channels in
the later 90s and early 2000s when the same channels began broadcasting in
digital.
In order to show programmes that had been shot in 16:9 for transmission on
digital, they zoomed the picture out slightly to give small black borders at
the top and bottom and partly-cropped the picture at the sides, giving a
14:9 picture which was a sort of half-and-half widescreen :-)
Sometimes they got the aspect ratio wrong. I remember one series of Peak
Practice where the picture was slightly squashed - not as much as the normal
4:3 stretched to 16:9 - making people look just *slightly* too fat. Maybe it
was 12:9 (4:3) squashed anamorphically to 14:9 instead of being zoomed and
cropped.
I assumed that the masters for what was shown on analogue as 14:9 were
actually made in 16:9, but when I bought a DVD of the 1999 Alan Bleasdale
version of Oliver Twist recently, I noticed that it had been cropped to a
4:3 frame, losing a lot of the sides of the picture, some of which was
present in my old VHS recording from analogue.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 27, 2016, 10:16:46 PM7/27/16
to
In message <6ltgpbh51j1bll4li...@4ax.com>, Roderick
would know who uploaded anything. How helpful they'd be, I don't know.
>
>Rod.
Sadly, a lot of the material we're discussing is of use to the
authorities - things like the perpetrators of terrorist attacks,
criminal activities, and so on. (I mean it's sad that that is the case,
not that it's useful to the authorities; that's anything but sad.) In
most of such cases, I presume the authorities have powers to requisition
such material. I don't know how much of what reaches the news media is
seized material that has been passed to the news media by the
authorities; whether the originator still has rights in such a
situation, I also don't know. I imagine there are circumstances where it
is considered a matter of the public good that the material receives a
wide circulation as rapidly as possible (e. g. in the hope that someone
will recognise the perpetrators); I also suspect that such is claimed
somewhat more often than is actually the case, assuming that such claims
can prevent originators getting paid.
"Well, I certainly hope you die soon." - Broadcast News
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:40:10 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
>wrote:
>
>>>> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
[]
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:40:10 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
>wrote:
>
>>>> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
>>OK, so youtube is out. If I were to offer it for download on my own
>>website instead?
>
>Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
>people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
>newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
>and what could you do about that?
In theory, go after the people who uploaded it: YouTube in practice
>>website instead?
>
>Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
>people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
>newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
>and what could you do about that?
would know who uploaded anything. How helpful they'd be, I don't know.
>
>Rod.
Sadly, a lot of the material we're discussing is of use to the
authorities - things like the perpetrators of terrorist attacks,
criminal activities, and so on. (I mean it's sad that that is the case,
not that it's useful to the authorities; that's anything but sad.) In
most of such cases, I presume the authorities have powers to requisition
such material. I don't know how much of what reaches the news media is
seized material that has been passed to the news media by the
authorities; whether the originator still has rights in such a
situation, I also don't know. I imagine there are circumstances where it
is considered a matter of the public good that the material receives a
wide circulation as rapidly as possible (e. g. in the hope that someone
will recognise the perpetrators); I also suspect that such is claimed
somewhat more often than is actually the case, assuming that such claims
can prevent originators getting paid.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Now, is there anything I can do for you?"
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Well, I certainly hope you die soon." - Broadcast News
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jul 27, 2016, 10:16:55 PM7/27/16
to
In message <q5bm6d-...@wschwanke.de>, Wolfgang Schwanke
>news:6pednZcT1JEX5AXK...@brightview.co.uk:
I'm not sure what you (both) mean here. IMO, it's _never_ acceptable to
cause the image seen to be _distorted_. If by "with widescreen turned
on" you mean set so that the full horizontal resolution of the
transmission system is used, but with the relevant flags so that the
displaying equipment knows it is 4:3, then that's fair enough [if the
_user_ has set their equipment to mangle the image, that's not the
broadcaster's fault].
>the framwork of a programme that is otherwhise widescreen. You can't
IMO, such material should always appear pillarboxed when viewed on a
shortscreen display, however it is actually encoded; for a _short_ clip,
it might be acceptable to encode some black sides rather than switch
flags.
>switch aspect ratio mid-programme; even if it was technically possible
>(which I guess it isn't) you wouldn't want to.
I think it is; the only reason you wouldn't want to is because of
possible delays in receiving (displaying) equipment as it gets round to
doing the switching. Even with such, I think for a clip of a reasonable
length (a minute or more perhaps?), I think the switching should be
done, to use the maximum resolution/bandwidth/whatever available from
the channel.
flags would maximise the horizontal resolution; however, where data
compression/encoding is involved, it probably doesn't matter that much,
in that as others have said black compresses to near enough zero anyway.
>
>Yes absolutely. That way you get the full resolution, and you retain
>compatibility with 4:3 screens.
>
(What bugged me when I started this thread was, indeed, the tendency of
broadcasters to show vertical-strip material - which I accept may be
what's available - with a blown-up and blurred version _of the same
content_ filling the sides. Whatever the _source_ of this weird
presentation [done in the 'phone, or whatever], I don't see the _point_
of it. I just find it distracting.)
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013
>news:6pednZcT1JEX5AXK...@brightview.co.uk:
>
>>> HD is 16:9 by definition. You can't have 4:3 HD.
>>
>> Yes, I thought we were all talking about SD in this thread. The very
>> fact that I've referred to 704 or 720 pixels horizontal resolution
>> makes it obvious that it's SD, rather than HD which is 1920x1080.
>
>Sorry, I read that as 720p. My error.
>>> HD is 16:9 by definition. You can't have 4:3 HD.
>>
>> Yes, I thought we were all talking about SD in this thread. The very
>> fact that I've referred to 704 or 720 pixels horizontal resolution
>> makes it obvious that it's SD, rather than HD which is 1920x1080.
>
>
>>> Really? That shouldn't really be possible. Are sure those are not SD
>>> channels? Obviusly you can have 576i 4:3, and that's how such
>>> material should always be handled (sadly it isn't often).
>>
>> Are you saying that it's correct to broadcast 4:3 SD in a 16:9 frame
>> (with widescreen turned on)
>
>No, I hate that. It is only excusable if a short 4:3 clip is shown in
>>> Really? That shouldn't really be possible. Are sure those are not SD
>>> channels? Obviusly you can have 576i 4:3, and that's how such
>>> material should always be handled (sadly it isn't often).
>>
>> Are you saying that it's correct to broadcast 4:3 SD in a 16:9 frame
>> (with widescreen turned on)
>
I'm not sure what you (both) mean here. IMO, it's _never_ acceptable to
cause the image seen to be _distorted_. If by "with widescreen turned
on" you mean set so that the full horizontal resolution of the
transmission system is used, but with the relevant flags so that the
displaying equipment knows it is 4:3, then that's fair enough [if the
_user_ has set their equipment to mangle the image, that's not the
broadcaster's fault].
>the framwork of a programme that is otherwhise widescreen. You can't
IMO, such material should always appear pillarboxed when viewed on a
shortscreen display, however it is actually encoded; for a _short_ clip,
it might be acceptable to encode some black sides rather than switch
flags.
>switch aspect ratio mid-programme; even if it was technically possible
>(which I guess it isn't) you wouldn't want to.
I think it is; the only reason you wouldn't want to is because of
possible delays in receiving (displaying) equipment as it gets round to
doing the switching. Even with such, I think for a clip of a reasonable
length (a minute or more perhaps?), I think the switching should be
done, to use the maximum resolution/bandwidth/whatever available from
the channel.
>
>> or are you saying that it's correct to
>> broadcast it as 4:3 with all the frame allocated to the broadcast
>> material (ie no black borders) and with widescreen turned off?
If it's just raw video, then yes, no black borders but with relevant
>> or are you saying that it's correct to
>> broadcast it as 4:3 with all the frame allocated to the broadcast
>> material (ie no black borders) and with widescreen turned off?
flags would maximise the horizontal resolution; however, where data
compression/encoding is involved, it probably doesn't matter that much,
in that as others have said black compresses to near enough zero anyway.
>
>Yes absolutely. That way you get the full resolution, and you retain
>compatibility with 4:3 screens.
>
(What bugged me when I started this thread was, indeed, the tendency of
broadcasters to show vertical-strip material - which I accept may be
what's available - with a blown-up and blurred version _of the same
content_ filling the sides. Whatever the _source_ of this weird
presentation [done in the 'phone, or whatever], I don't see the _point_
of it. I just find it distracting.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013
Roderick Stewart
Jul 28, 2016, 2:17:00 AM7/28/16
to
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 03:05:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
>[]
>>>OK, so youtube is out. If I were to offer it for download on my own
>>>website instead?
>>
>>Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
>>people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
>>newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
>>and what could you do about that?
>
>In theory, go after the people who uploaded it: YouTube in practice
>would know who uploaded anything. How helpful they'd be, I don't know.
Even if you could find the people who uploaded it, unless they had
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> If I were to film a world newsy event, the first thing I'd do is insert
>[]
>>>OK, so youtube is out. If I were to offer it for download on my own
>>>website instead?
>>
>>Effectively the same, unless you had some means of ensuring that
>>people paid, and chasing those who didn't. If it was really
>>newsworthy, it would soon be reposted everywhere, including Youtube,
>>and what could you do about that?
>
>In theory, go after the people who uploaded it: YouTube in practice
>would know who uploaded anything. How helpful they'd be, I don't know.
money there would be no point in suing them, and if they did have
money they'd also have expensive lawyers. You might be theoretically
in the right, but in reality such an exercise would be pointless.
Rod.
0 new messages