Countryfile

[Bill Wright]

What possessed them to put ludicrously unrealistic fake tramlines over a
sequence showing Japanese vegetables? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Bill

[Brian Gaff]

What?

Surreal man, like far out..
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kmokbv$hqr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[Owain]

On May 12, 6:43 pm, Bill Wright wrote:
> What possessed them to put ludicrously unrealistic fake tramlines over a
> sequence showing Japanese vegetables? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Because if the director doesn't apply some effects to the footage no-
one will know he's got a Media degree from East Cheam Poly (sorry, The
Hancock Sutton Metropolitan University)

Owain

[Ramsman]

On 14/05/2013 09:09, Martin wrote:

> Is it worse than often out of focus, 10 second interval slide show,
> celeb driven, Gardeners' World?
>

The most annoying thing for me in Countryfile is the occasional tinting
of the top part of the screen, colouring the clouds. It really does look
artificial. Not at all acceptable for fans of Constable, Turner, van
Ruysdael, etc.

--
Peter

[Chris J Dixon]

Ramsman wrote:

>The most annoying thing for me in Countryfile is the occasional tinting
>of the top part of the screen, colouring the clouds. It really does look
>artificial. Not at all acceptable for fans of Constable, Turner, van
>Ruysdael, etc.

Ah! The graduated filter. Also very popular on Top Gear.

There is a technical reason for using them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter

However, I agree that having the top third of the picture turning
noticeably purple is unattractive.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
ch...@cdixon.me.uk

Plant amazing Acers.

[David Kennedy]

On 14/05/2013 09:57, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Ramsman wrote:
>
>> The most annoying thing for me in Countryfile is the occasional tinting
>> of the top part of the screen, colouring the clouds. It really does look
>> artificial. Not at all acceptable for fans of Constable, Turner, van
>> Ruysdael, etc.
>
> Ah! The graduated filter. Also very popular on Top Gear.
>
> There is a technical reason for using them:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter
>

There is indeed but many of these twats seem to thing it's compulsory.
After all who would simply want to watch the program if there were no
"clever" effects...

> However, I agree that having the top third of the picture turning
> noticeably purple is unattractive.
>
> Chris
>


--

David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

[Andy Champ]

On 14/05/2013 09:14, Ramsman wrote:
>
> The most annoying thing for me in Countryfile is the occasional tinting
> of the top part of the screen, colouring the clouds. It really does look
> artificial. Not at all acceptable for fans of Constable, Turner, van
> Ruysdael, etc.

The most annoying thing for me about Countryfile is that it isn't about
the country any more. They got rid of all their experienced presenters a
few years back, and the new ones might be better looking but don't have
the knowledge.

Haven't watched it for years. I used to watch every episode.

Andy
--
Did try one the other day. Not any better.

[David Kennedy]

On 14/05/2013 10:13, Martin wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:07:34 +0100, David Kennedy
> <davidk...@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 14/05/2013 09:57, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>> Ramsman wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most annoying thing for me in Countryfile is the occasional tinting
>>>> of the top part of the screen, colouring the clouds. It really does look
>>>> artificial. Not at all acceptable for fans of Constable, Turner, van
>>>> Ruysdael, etc.
>>>
>>> Ah! The graduated filter. Also very popular on Top Gear.
>>>
>>> There is a technical reason for using them:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter
>>>
>>
>> There is indeed but many of these twats seem to thing it's compulsory.
>> After all who would simply want to watch the program if there were no
>> "clever" effects...
>

> Twats?
>
A technical term used to describe over ambitious directors.

[Graham C]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:42:33 +0100, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Agree 100%. Bring back Michaela!

This business of 'We are going to show you...', followed by,
'At the beginning of the programme we said we'd show you...'
then you see (part) of it which allows them to say later,
'Earlier in the programme we showed you...' is criticised many times
on 'Points of view'.
It turns a 50 minute programme into an hour long one which is probably
why the Beeb take no notice of the complaints.

A long term mate of mine (ex BBC video editor who incidentally rated
Ms Strachan as 'extremely professional') found difficulty in getting
work later as a freelancer as he 'wasn't using all the gimics and
gadgets', plus 'not enough cuts - we need one every few seconds.'

OT but I note the Beeb have taken some notice of the 'Credit Crunch'
repeat complaint. They now don't shrink the credits until part way
through, though they now run them at high speed which makes reading
nigh impossible. I find the Toppy won't freeze frame at the exact bit
you want to read.

GrahamC

[Rick]

"Andy Champ" <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:h6Gdncv00NWUmg_M...@eclipse.net.uk...

No gimmicks back in the days when Jack Hargreaves presented 'Out of Town',
and in my view all the better for it.

[Bill Wright]

Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Ramsman wrote:
>
>> The most annoying thing for me in Countryfile is the occasional tinting
>> of the top part of the screen, colouring the clouds. It really does look
>> artificial. Not at all acceptable for fans of Constable, Turner, van
>> Ruysdael, etc.
>
> Ah! The graduated filter. Also very popular on Top Gear.
>
> There is a technical reason for using them:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter

It isn't a graduated neutral density filter. It's a graduated colour filter.

Bill

[Norman Wells]

Fanny in the kitchen, Percy in the greenhouse!

Those were the days.

[Ramsman]

Exactly. A proper graduated ND filter wouldn't be obtrusive, after all
that's what it's for. If I wanted silly colour effects I'd put coloured
plastic over the screen.

--
Peter

[Ramsman]

Great programme. Didn't see it very often, but loved the music:
Recuerdos de la Alhambra. I remember learning what a fleam is.

--
Peter

[Ian]

In message <gr54p8pl3bvna1sao...@4ax.com>, Graham C
<graha...@btopenworld.com> writes

The bits telling you what's coming up, and what's already happened are
for the benefit of people who've forgotten everything during the
commercials.

The company that produces it hope it will be bought by other
broadcasters, who may be commercial.
--
Ian

[Steve Thackery]

Graham C wrote:

> Agree 100%. Bring back Michaela!

Phwwoooaaarrrgghh, yeah, not arf!!

(Just joking - my little example of being patronising.)

--
SteveT

[Davey]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:29:10 +0200
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> Remember the ones sold for B/W sets?

The ones with a blue top third, and a green bottom third?
--
Davey.

[Sara]

In article <GZWdnVN6M_rXCA_M...@bt.com>,

Now, now!

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

[Davey]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:48:51 +0200
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:58:19 +0100, Davey <da...@example.invalid>

> Yes!

I watched "Fantastic Journey", or whatever it was called, the one
where people and a submarine are miniaturised and injected into
somebody's body, with one of those colour sheets on the screen. There
was no sky, and no grass in the film. It really showed up the
pointlessness of the things.
--
Davey.

[JohnT]

"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmvni1$2r0$1...@n102.xanadu-bbs.net...

--
JohnT

[JohnT]

"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmvni1$2r0$1...@n102.xanadu-bbs.net...

Are you sure it wasn't 1960s broadcast NTSC?
--
JohnT

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:58:55 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>
>>Are you sure it wasn't 1960s broadcast NTSC?
>

>NTSC colours were much more random and less realistic. :)

"NTSC colours" (whatever that means) were derived from the same kind
of lenses and colour splitting prism blocks that were used to produce
"PAL colours". Sometimes the same actual lenses and prisms were
routinely used for both, as cameras like the EMI 2001 could be used on
both standards, so it's difficult to see how the same cameras could
produce different colours. Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
everything was correctly lined up, at least in the studio environment
you couldn't tell them apart.

Rod.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ok79p89o1smq8hr52...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

I only started (occasionally) going to the USA in the early 80s, and I
have to admit that any of the poor quality pictures I saw were probably
not because they were NTSC. All the impairments were essentially the
same as I've seen with PAL. Presumably they had already improved TV
design by the time I got there.
--
Ian

[Kennedy McEwen]

In message <ok79p89o1smq8hr52...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

>Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
>were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
>everything was correctly lined up,

Yes, but the emphasis on that caveat was much more important with NTSC
than it was on PAL.

>at least in the studio environment
>you couldn't tell them apart.
>

Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC or
unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had "grown
up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.

Nevertheless, most viewers didn't watch TV is a studio environment, and
the importance of the caveat you mentioned previously meant that, for
the general viewing public, NTSC produced less realistic and more random
colours (or should that be colors?).
--
Kennedy

[Davey]

I absolutely agree with that. While living in the US during th 1980s,
and 1990s, it was a joy to return to the UK for trips and watch TV with
good colour rendition.
--
Davey.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
<r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
>>were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
>>everything was correctly lined up,
>
>Yes, but the emphasis on that caveat was much more important with NTSC
>than it was on PAL.
>
>>at least in the studio environment
>>you couldn't tell them apart.
>>
>Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC or
>unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had "grown
>up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.

The numbers may suggest there would be huge differences between the
appearance of the pictures, but in reality, with real pictures rather
than test charts, all other things being equal and everything
correctly lined up, it was very difficult indeed to tell them apart.

>Nevertheless, most viewers didn't watch TV is a studio environment, and
>the importance of the caveat you mentioned previously meant that, for
>the general viewing public, NTSC produced less realistic and more random
>colours (or should that be colors?).

Yes, the transmission path to the viewers' homes is clearly where a
lot of the quality loss occurred. Maybe the programme makers in
America have a different attitude to quality of equipment and care
taken in studio lineup too, as material which had been originated
there often looked a bit dubious even directly off tape. However, on
the few occasions when I was involved in the making of NTSC programmes
at Television Centre, using the same cameras and monitors we normally
used for PAL, there weren't so many dots on the vectorscope but
otherwise everything just looked exactly the same as usual. It was, as
we used to say "All right leaving us".

Rod.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <tlojp8h6uqkblrr1q...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>




>>>
>>Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC or
>>unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had "grown
>>up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.
>
>The numbers may suggest there would be huge differences between the
>appearance of the pictures, but in reality, with real pictures rather
>than test charts, all other things being equal and everything
>correctly lined up, it was very difficult indeed to tell them apart.
>

In ye dayse of CRT sets, when visiting the USA, the thing which used to
strike me most about the ordinary TV set pictures was how 'solid' they
looked. This was undoubtedly because of the total lack of any
perceptible flicker like you get with 50Hz systems (especially when
you're not looking directly at the screen). Unless you looked for it,
you weren't really aware of the coarser 525-line structure, and
otherwise the pictures looked perfectly 'normal'.

>
>


--
Ian

[Davey]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:01:58 +0200
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> Did you notice that there was nothing worth watching? :-)

On my first trip to California, I found a 'The Prisoner' marathon.
Stayed up all night watching it.
--
Davey.

[Kennedy McEwen]

In message <tlojp8h6uqkblrr1q...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Maybe the programme makers in
>America have a different attitude to quality of equipment and care
>taken in studio lineup too, as material which had been originated
>there often looked a bit dubious even directly off tape.

Almost certainly: American TV adopted a policy of "more=choice=quality"
long before UK TV output exceeded 2 channels, let alone the 5 analogue
options we had until recently.

It's over 30 years since Roger Waters wrote the words, about a US hotel
resident: "I Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from."
More applicable these days, and to the UK too.
--
Kennedy

[Johny B Good]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:33:58 +0100, Kennedy McEwen

<r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <tlojp8h6uqkblrr1q...@4ax.com>, Roderick
>Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
>><r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Maybe the programme makers in
>>America have a different attitude to quality of equipment and care
>>taken in studio lineup too, as material which had been originated
>>there often looked a bit dubious even directly off tape.
>
>Almost certainly: American TV adopted a policy of "more=choice=quality"
>long before UK TV output exceeded 2 channels, let alone the 5 analogue
>options we had until recently.
>
>It's over 30 years since Roger Waters wrote the words, about a US hotel
>resident: "I Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from."
>More applicable these days, and to the UK too.

Weird Al Yancovich reiterated this lament of american TV in a track
called "I Can't Watch This!" (to the tune of "Can't Touch This") over
15 years ago with the notable lines of:

"Stop! Cable time, HBO and Playboy, Showtime and MPV,
I might like them more after my lobotomy.
Now why did I ever pay for this junk?
I hooked up 80 channels and each one stunk."

Seems to sum up the excerable situation we now have here in the UK.

--
Regards, J B Good

[Davey]

Yep, we've just caught up with their execrable situation.
--
Davey.

[Andy Champ]

On 21/05/2013 08:33, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> It's over 30 years since Roger Waters wrote the words, about a US hotel
> resident: "I Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from."
> More applicable these days, and to the UK too.

Ah yes, progress. Springsteen, "57 channels and nothing on" in 1992...

Andy