A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Sky at Night



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 14th 14, 04:13 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.misc
James Harris[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Sky at Night

"CD" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:53:29 +0000, Bob L wrote:

I found it highly annoying, wobbly cameras - panning between
presenters, picture quality more like filmic, my mobius 40 camera
produces better picture quality than what was transmitted.


I started thread on uk.media.tv.misc shortly after it finished, should
have
x-posted it here as it is/was a favourite with folks here.


Similarly, I posted on uk.sci.astronomy last month when I heard that Maggie
Aderin-Pocock was to present The Sky At Night. I didn't think to post to TV
groups.

According to the newsgroup descriptions it looks like the *content* of shows
would be off topic for uk.tech.digital-tv. Scope creep, perhaps....

James


Ads
  #12  
Old February 14th 14, 04:26 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 488
Default Sky at Night

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:30:30 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Steve Thackery
writes
Rick wrote:

lurching panning - rapid in and out zooms


Yes! What's going on? They seem to think it's a good idea to emulate
an *amateur* camera operator.

WHY???

Because it's considered 'artistic' by TV producers.


Lots of adverts have those simulated optical aberrations like lens
flare in the shot transitions. It's getting tiresome.

  #13  
Old February 14th 14, 04:26 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,272
Default Sky at Night

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:30:30 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Steve Thackery
writes
Rick wrote:

lurching panning - rapid in and out zooms


Yes! What's going on? They seem to think it's a good idea to emulate
an *amateur* camera operator.

WHY???

Because it's considered 'artistic' by TV producers.


And if they'd wanted non-wobbly pictures they would have supplied
Steadicam units.

Camera-person thinks: This camera is not stabilised so I must be meant
to wobble it. Here goes.......

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #14  
Old February 14th 14, 04:33 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.misc
Graham.[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 488
Default Sky at Night

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:13:51 -0000, "James Harris"
wrote:

"CD" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:53:29 +0000, Bob L wrote:

I found it highly annoying, wobbly cameras - panning between
presenters, picture quality more like filmic, my mobius 40 camera
produces better picture quality than what was transmitted.


I started thread on uk.media.tv.misc shortly after it finished, should
have
x-posted it here as it is/was a favourite with folks here.


Similarly, I posted on uk.sci.astronomy last month when I heard that Maggie
Aderin-Pocock was to present The Sky At Night. I didn't think to post to TV
groups.

According to the newsgroup descriptions it looks like the *content* of shows
would be off topic for uk.tech.digital-tv. Scope creep, perhaps....

James



We don't worry about that stuff too much here, post away.
Anyway modern optical astronomy *is* largely digital TV isn't it?

  #15  
Old February 14th 14, 06:34 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default Sky at Night

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:26:09 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:


lurching panning - rapid in and out zooms

Yes! What's going on? They seem to think it's a good idea to emulate
an *amateur* camera operator.

WHY???

Because it's considered 'artistic' by TV producers.


And if they'd wanted non-wobbly pictures they would have supplied
Steadicam units.


Or tripods with nice smooth pan & tilt heads. Every professional
camera operator I've worked with knew perfectly well how to use these
and was quite capable of making camera moves unobtrusive. It's a shame
TV programmes need to have arty directors.

Rod.
  #16  
Old February 14th 14, 06:42 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default Sky at Night

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:33:22 +0000, Graham. wrote:

According to the newsgroup descriptions it looks like the *content* of shows
would be off topic for uk.tech.digital-tv. Scope creep, perhaps....

James



We don't worry about that stuff too much here, post away.
Anyway modern optical astronomy *is* largely digital TV isn't it?


Not much isn't these days. In a cafe with 13 year old granddaughter
this afternoon, watched her prop up her iPhone and proceed to do a
makeup/hair check using the front facing camera. When I were a lad,
girls just used mirrors.

Rod.
  #17  
Old February 14th 14, 07:00 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,633
Default Sky at Night

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Not much isn't these days. In a cafe with 13 year old granddaughter
this afternoon, watched her prop up her iPhone and proceed to do a
makeup/hair check using the front facing camera. When I were a lad,
girls just used mirrors.


I must confess, I was forced to use my phone as an electronic magnifying
glass the other day !


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #18  
Old February 14th 14, 08:15 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,272
Default Sky at Night

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:34:45 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:26:09 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:


lurching panning - rapid in and out zooms

Yes! What's going on? They seem to think it's a good idea to emulate
an *amateur* camera operator.

WHY???

Because it's considered 'artistic' by TV producers.


And if they'd wanted non-wobbly pictures they would have supplied
Steadicam units.


Or tripods with nice smooth pan & tilt heads. Every professional
camera operator I've worked with knew perfectly well how to use these
and was quite capable of making camera moves unobtrusive. It's a shame
TV programmes need to have arty directors.

Getting on for a century ago a man was appointed Head of Productions at
the BBC, responsible for all radio drama. He was Val Gielgud, brother of
(Sir) John Gielgud the well-known actor. He made an important innovation
in radio drama. He introduced background music to set the mood for
listeners because there were none of the visual cues for the audience
that existed in stage performances. However, he had a very important
principle: the music should not draw attention to itself. If listeners
were conscious of it that was an artistic failure. It's a pity that
today's directors don't understand that principle.

I studied stage lighting (self-taught) and found that the same principle
applied. Lighting could set a mood, using warm or cold colours, draw
attention to one or more actors by reducing the intensity of the
lighting on the others, and so on. But at no time should the lighting
draw attention to itself. The audience should be not consciously aware
of the lighting. It should fit the drama naturally.



--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #19  
Old February 14th 14, 09:02 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Sky at Night

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:34:45 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:


On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:26:09 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:


lurching panning - rapid in and out zooms

Yes! What's going on? They seem to think it's a good idea to emulate
an *amateur* camera operator.

WHY???

Because it's considered 'artistic' by TV producers.

And if they'd wanted non-wobbly pictures they would have supplied
Steadicam units.


Or tripods with nice smooth pan & tilt heads. Every professional
camera operator I've worked with knew perfectly well how to use these
and was quite capable of making camera moves unobtrusive. It's a shame
TV programmes need to have arty directors.

Getting on for a century ago a man was appointed Head of Productions at
the BBC, responsible for all radio drama. He was Val Gielgud, brother of
(Sir) John Gielgud the well-known actor. He made an important innovation
in radio drama. He introduced background music to set the mood for
listeners because there were none of the visual cues for the audience
that existed in stage performances. However, he had a very important
principle: the music should not draw attention to itself. If listeners
were conscious of it that was an artistic failure. It's a pity that
today's directors don't understand that principle.


I studied stage lighting (self-taught) and found that the same principle
applied. Lighting could set a mood, using warm or cold colours, draw
attention to one or more actors by reducing the intensity of the
lighting on the others, and so on. But at no time should the lighting
draw attention to itself. The audience should be not consciously aware
of the lighting. It should fit the drama naturally.


That is my feeling about stage lighting, too. Unfortunately whizzy things.
like moving lights, give "a professional look" to a show. I quote from a
critic of our club's recent panto.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

  #20  
Old February 15th 14, 12:19 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default Sky at Night

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:34:45 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:26:09 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

lurching panning - rapid in and out zooms
Yes! What's going on? They seem to think it's a good idea to emulate
an *amateur* camera operator.

WHY???

Because it's considered 'artistic' by TV producers.
And if they'd wanted non-wobbly pictures they would have supplied
Steadicam units.

Or tripods with nice smooth pan & tilt heads. Every professional
camera operator I've worked with knew perfectly well how to use these
and was quite capable of making camera moves unobtrusive. It's a shame
TV programmes need to have arty directors.

Getting on for a century ago a man was appointed Head of Productions at
the BBC, responsible for all radio drama. He was Val Gielgud, brother of
(Sir) John Gielgud the well-known actor. He made an important innovation
in radio drama. He introduced background music to set the mood for
listeners because there were none of the visual cues for the audience
that existed in stage performances. However, he had a very important
principle: the music should not draw attention to itself. If listeners
were conscious of it that was an artistic failure. It's a pity that
today's directors don't understand that principle.

I studied stage lighting (self-taught) and found that the same principle
applied. Lighting could set a mood, using warm or cold colours, draw
attention to one or more actors by reducing the intensity of the
lighting on the others, and so on. But at no time should the lighting
draw attention to itself. The audience should be not consciously aware
of the lighting. It should fit the drama naturally.


It's the same with typography. If the reader is constantly aware of it
it has failed.

Bill
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.