Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given. But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be
given.
But why can't modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item containsLiability issues if they accidentally leave a flash in.
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given. >> But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending >> flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
Bill
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item containsLiability issues if they accidentally leave a flash in.
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be
given.
But why can't modern processing drop the frames that contain the
offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
Bill
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given. But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2021 09:23, Tweed wrote:For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains >>>>> some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on >>>> this topic.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)? >>>>>
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV >>>>
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item containsThere's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given. >>> But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
be electronically eliminated from news video.
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item containsThere's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given. >> But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending >> flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
On 06/10/2021 09:23, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains >>>> some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)? >>>>
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV >>>
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !
On 06/10/2021 10:04, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:Live or 'near live' light entertainment contains it, notably rock and
On 06/10/2021 09:23, Tweed wrote:For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains >>>>>> some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on >>>>> this topic.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)? >>>>>>
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV >>>>>
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively
preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?
pop concerts.
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2021 09:23, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains >>>>> some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on >>>> this topic.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)? >>>>>
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV >>>>
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t >>> be electronically eliminated from news video.
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !
For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively >preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact. The other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly think that suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the meaning in any significant way. It’s orders of magnitude below how the meaning is altered (for good or ill) by the editing process and the journalistic voice over. (Please don’t start another BBC bashing or Brexit thread, they are getting tedious….). Pre preprepared programmes have to be certified free of these issues, so for example, a week old news documentary couldn’t carry flash photography (if I understand the rules correctly). It’s only near real time stuff that escapes this process.
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:04:32 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2021 09:23, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:Thanks. IÂ’ve had a look through that site, but unless IÂ’ve missed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains >>>>>> some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on >>>>> this topic.
But why canÂ’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)? >>>>>>
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV >>>>>
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
something, it doesnÂ’t answer my question as to why flash photography canÂ’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !
For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively
preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?
A function or adaptor for the TV sets of those who consider themselves troubled by this would be a more appropriate place to implement any deliberate distortion of news footage. Then those who were watching
the distorted footage would know they were, because they'd chosen to
do it themselves. This would be much better than having your view
distorted by someone else, perhaps without your knowledge.
If you're concerned about discriminating against those with "flash photography issues", what about the routine attempts to "protect"
those with "word issues" or "idea issues" by preventing the use of
particular words or expressions, or the inclusion of particular ideas?
Do you think it's more discriminatory to do this, or not to do it?
Rod.
On 07/10/2021 09:31, Tweed wrote:
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact. The
other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly think that >> suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the meaning in any
significant way. It’s orders of magnitude below how the meaning is altered >> (for good or ill) by the editing process and the journalistic voice over.
(Please don’t start another BBC bashing or Brexit thread, they are getting >> tedious….). Pre preprepared programmes have to be certified free of these
issues, so for example, a week old news documentary couldn’t carry flash
photography (if I understand the rules correctly). It’s only near real time >> stuff that escapes this process.
It would be a good thing if the use of flash was restricted. The
continuous stream of flashes during a news event as dozens of
photographers all take identical pictures, is very annoying. And of
course the ones hoping to make some female celebrity's dress transparent
with their very powerful flashguns.
With modern cameras it is quite possible to get good pictures without flash.
On 05/10/2021 22:15, Tweed wrote:
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item containsThere's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be
given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the
offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse
Why do they warn about flash as in photography but they NEVER give any warning in respect of blues on emergency vehicles?
I have seen some areas using very bright forward pointing
flashing white lights on ambulances.
MB wrote:
I have seen some areas using very bright forward pointing flashing
white lights on ambulances.
Too bright IME, they blind you to the ambulance's indicators, so you
can't see which way is best for you to get out of its way ...
If you look at the rear light bar on ambulances and police vehicles
you will see that there are (usually) two blue lights in the middle
that are steady lit. Why? Because of disputes with local authorities
over whether or not the vehicle was on an emergency run when it got
flashed by a speed camera. It is possible that the picture could taken
during the very short time when both flashing blues are off, so a
steady light makes the situation clear.
On 08/10/2021 08:16, Woody wrote:
If you look at the rear light bar on ambulances and police vehicles
you will see that there are (usually) two blue lights in the middle
that are steady lit. Why? Because of disputes with local authorities
over whether or not the vehicle was on an emergency run when it got
flashed by a speed camera. It is possible that the picture could taken
during the very short time when both flashing blues are off, so a
steady light makes the situation clear.
Do they really go to such trouble for emergency service vehicles ? I'd
have thought their registration plates are appropriately flagged as
'don't worry' on the database, and that's it ?
On 08/10/2021 08:16, Woody wrote:
If you look at the rear light bar on ambulances and police vehicles
you will see that there are (usually) two blue lights in the middle
that are steady lit. Why? Because of disputes with local authorities
over whether or not the vehicle was on an emergency run when it got
flashed by a speed camera. It is possible that the picture could taken
during the very short time when both flashing blues are off, so a
steady light makes the situation clear.
Do they really go to such trouble for emergency service vehicles ? I'd
have thought their registration plates are appropriately flagged as
'don't worry' on the database, and that's it ?
It is clearly important that emergency vehicles stick to normal
traffic rules, except when operationally necessary.
There was the case years ago of someone being booked by a "Red Light Camera". He said the moved forward to allow an unmarked police car through. He was charged and convicted but fortunately it was found
that it was a car from another police force so the local one knew
nothing about it.
Do they really go to such trouble for emergency service vehicles ? I'd
have thought their registration plates are appropriately flagged as
'don't worry' on the database, and that's it ?
If the lights are not on, then normal
rules are enforced.
I was told the fire brigade and probably ambulances are told not to use their sirens to persuade a drive to cross the white line to allow them through. And
when the authorities have been asked whether you should let a fire engine or ambulance pass by crossing the white line, they say you should not.
There's been similar cases of people crossing into bus lanes etc, to get
out of the way of emergency vehicles, then having a fine arrive a couple
of weeks later.
Seems to be only a limited level of scrutiny on the photographs then ?
On 08/10/2021 09:04, John Williamson wrote:
If the lights are not on, then normal
rules are enforced.
I remember on one of these TV programmes a detective in an unmarked
police car chasing (we are told that only done in marked vehicles)
whilst using TWO mobile phones - one in each hand and they very
definitely were not police radios.
A large proportion of police traffic cars seem to now be unmarked,
usually black, with just a couple of blue lights in the windscreen and possibly radiator grill but don't remember a light at the back but
perhaps a recent addition.
There was the case years ago of someone being booked by a "Red Light Camera". He said the moved forward to allow an unmarked police car through. He was charged and convicted but fortunately it was found that
it was a car from another police force so the local one knew nothing
about it.
On 08/10/2021 12:02, Mark Carver wrote:
There's been similar cases of people crossing into bus lanes etc, to get
out of the way of emergency vehicles, then having a fine arrive a couple
of weeks later.
Seems to be only a limited level of scrutiny on the photographs then ?
I was told the fire brigade and probably ambulances are told not to use
their sirens to persuade a drive to cross the white line to allow them through. And when the authorities have been asked whether you should
let a fire engine or ambulance pass by crossing the white line, they say
you should not.
Of course the police driver waving for you to get out of ###### way is considered crossing the white line on the orders of a police officer.
An ex-police friend worked "on the dark side", they were in a covert car
and asked to get ahead of a car that was being followed by turning left
and getting onto another road running parallel. The lights turned to
red but the pavement was very wide so went around the corner on the
pavement.
There was police motorbike across the road so he must have thought it
was his lucky day!
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:40:36 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 07/10/2021 09:31, Tweed wrote:Pictures are usually much more natural looking without flash. I've had
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact.
The other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly
think that suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the
meaning in any significant way. ItÂ’s orders of magnitude below how the
meaning is altered (for good or ill) by the editing process and the
journalistic voice over. (Please donÂ’t start another BBC bashing or
Brexit thread, they are getting tediousÂ….). Pre preprepared programmes
have to be certified free of these issues, so for example, a week old
news documentary couldnÂ’t carry flash photography (if I understand the
rules correctly). ItÂ’s only near real time stuff that escapes this
process.
It would be a good thing if the use of flash was restricted. The >>continuous stream of flashes during a news event as dozens of
photographers all take identical pictures, is very annoying. And of
course the ones hoping to make some female celebrity's dress transparent >>with their very powerful flashguns.
With modern cameras it is quite possible to get good pictures without >>flash.
it switched off by default on every camera or phone I've ever owned, and rarely had a need to use it at all.
In answer to the main point, I still maintain, a few individuals'
medical or psychological conditions notwithstanding, that to depict a
news or current afairs event otherwise than how it really happened, is a distortion of the truth. If a lot of people were taking flash pictures
at some event, then to depict it as though this were not happening
(whatever the practicalities of how this might be done) is to show
something that didn't really happen. This might be acceptable in a
fictional drama, but is not what is required of a news broadcast.
Rod.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 12:15:19 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:40:36 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 07/10/2021 09:31, Tweed wrote:Pictures are usually much more natural looking without flash. I've had
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact.
The other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly
think that suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the
meaning in any significant way. It?s orders of magnitude below how the >>>> meaning is altered (for good or ill) by the editing process and the
journalistic voice over. (Please don?t start another BBC bashing or
Brexit thread, they are getting tedious?.). Pre preprepared programmes >>>> have to be certified free of these issues, so for example, a week old
news documentary couldn?t carry flash photography (if I understand the >>>> rules correctly). It?s only near real time stuff that escapes this
process.
It would be a good thing if the use of flash was restricted. The >>>continuous stream of flashes during a news event as dozens of >>>photographers all take identical pictures, is very annoying. And of >>>course the ones hoping to make some female celebrity's dress transparent >>>with their very powerful flashguns.
With modern cameras it is quite possible to get good pictures without >>>flash.
it switched off by default on every camera or phone I've ever owned, and
rarely had a need to use it at all.
In answer to the main point, I still maintain, a few individuals'
medical or psychological conditions notwithstanding, that to depict a
news or current afairs event otherwise than how it really happened, is a
distortion of the truth. If a lot of people were taking flash pictures
at some event, then to depict it as though this were not happening
(whatever the practicalities of how this might be done) is to show
something that didn't really happen. This might be acceptable in a
fictional drama, but is not what is required of a news broadcast.
Rod.
There should be a peanut warning when watching food programs as well.
Why do they warn about flash as in photography but they NEVER give any warning in respect of blues on emergency vehicles?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 292 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 209:16:19 |
| Calls: | 6,618 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,317,175 |