Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black >>coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of the >MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b >box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207 >03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total×tep=169539120 >0000>
Now that we're coming to the end of summer, there are going to be more
times when the country - or region, for regional forecasts - is completely covered, by cloud, rain, whatever.
Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover? We're not all as familiar with
the geography of the country (and/or our region of it) as the forecasters are, and it's difficult to relate to what's happening where without a coastline. (For example, I've just seen one where Scotland was completely obscured by blue and green; OK, it had a few placenames written on it
[even that is unusual], but they're hard to relate to in the short time available.)
It's especially confusing if they zoom in on a region - if it is
completely covered, it's not obvious that has happened, or if it has,
where the zoom points are.
It's _not_ meant to be a mimic of what would be seen from the space
station: the forecast is meant to be _informative_. Sure, show the
pictures if you want - but overlay the coastlines. (This used to be done decades ago on the pictures beamed back up to the weather satellites, so
it's not hard!)
The map they show showing temperatures - which is clear, shows land and
sea - towards the end of the forecast, is often a pleasant relief.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In
fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26
In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of
the MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b
box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207
03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total×tep=169539120
0000>
I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
forecasts should be more comprehensible.
On 22/09/2023 20:24, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of
the MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b >>> box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207 >>> 03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total×tep=169539120 >>> 0000>
I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
forecasts should be more comprehensible.
But they're not. The internet provides a far more comprehensive and user definable source of information for an almost infinite range of subjects
and topics.
Forget about relying on TV for anything beyond a very superficial level
of information.
It's 2023, not 1983
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:[]
But they're not. The internet provides a far more comprehensive and user
definable source of information for an almost infinite range of subjects
and topics.
Forget about relying on TV for anything beyond a very superficial level
of information.
Yes, in 1983 there would have been at least some chance of a suggestion
It's 2023, not 1983
Never get to follow the TV weather forecast anyway - my wife is always in >full flow criticising the appearance of the presenter…..
In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of the >>MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b >>box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207 >>03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total×tep=169539120 >>0000>
I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
forecasts should be more comprehensible. Some viewers aren't on the
internet; even those of us who are, don't necessarily have the internet everywhere we have a TV (such as bedroom where someone getting ready to go
to work might well be watching Breakfast), or have better things to do.
I can't think what _harm_ showing the coastlines/outlines would do to the weather forecast, except perhaps aesthetically.
It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at
the end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK,
where southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland? I remember
there was a phase when they did this, and blamed it on wanting to show >satellite photos of the cloud cover - has no-one at the Met Office got >software such as Paint Shop Pro that can correct for parallelogram
distortion of an oblique photo?
I agree about coastlines: they are one of the most important ways of
locating where you are on a map, especially if it's a part of the
country that you are less familiar with, where town names are less
useful. I live fairly close to Flamborough Head and the lump sticking
of out the east coat of northern England shows up even at a fairly
small scale so it's a useful pointed to "I live near here, so what's
the weather in that area?".
I can't think what _harm_ showing the coastlines/outlines would do to
the weather forecast, except perhaps aesthetically.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head: these days it seems to
be *far* more important that something looks nice than that it is
usable :-(
It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at the
end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK, where
southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland?
Andy Burns writes:
You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of
the MeteoGroup ones on the TV
I could, but why should I have to
to put it another way, the TV
forecasts should be more comprehensible.
I can't think what _harm_ showing the coastlines/outlines would do to
the weather forecast, except perhaps aesthetically.
In message <uepkc9$1dddo$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 24 Sep 2023 15:24:57,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:[]
But they're not. The internet provides a far more comprehensive and user >>> definable source of information for an almost infinite range of subjects >>> and topics.
Forget about relying on TV for anything beyond a very superficial level
of information.
But that's no reason why that superficial level can't accept >suggestions/observations. The few seconds (literally, often) allocated
to the weather forecast could be made much more informative - without >requiring any more time - by incorporating just this minor change.
Yes, in 1983 there would have been at least some chance of a suggestion
It's 2023, not 1983
being listened to.
(-:. Same here; even though mostly non-operational, being male I do
Never get to follow the TV weather forecast anyway - my wife is always in >>full flow criticising the appearance of the presenter…..
enjoy observing the presenter (who is usually female, on the forecasts I >see), but this does mean I rarely absorb anything they are saying! I
have wondered if it'd be better if they weren't in vision (giving them a >cursor or similar to point to where the weather they're describing is),
but I suspect that would be unpopular.
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:tmjnv+uEoeDlFwQZ@255soft.uk...
In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of the
MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b >>box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207 >>03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total×tep=169539120 >>0000>
I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
forecasts should be more comprehensible. Some viewers aren't on the internet; even those of us who are, don't necessarily have the internet everywhere we have a TV (such as bedroom where someone getting ready
to go to work might well be watching Breakfast), or have better things
to do.
It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at the
end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK, where
southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland? I remember there
was a phase when they did this, and blamed it on wanting to show
satellite photos of the cloud cover - has no-one at the Met Office got software such as Paint Shop Pro that can correct for parallelogram
distortion of an oblique photo?
You can pretty well guarantee any request you make to the BBC will go nowhere, maybe try asking the Kiwis direct?
But that's no reason why that superficial level can't accept suggestions/observations. The few seconds (literally, often) allocated
to the weather forecast could be made much more informative - without requiring any more time - by incorporating just this minor change.
On 25/09/2023 14:27, Andy Burns wrote:
You can pretty well guarantee any request you make to the BBC will go nowhere, maybe try asking the Kiwis direct?
Just think how many queries the BBC get every day!
I don't want my licence money going on answering pointless questions and moans about the TV Licence.
I am sure we all hate automated systems but it is very expensive to have experienced people answering trivial questions which is what I am sure
most are.
On 24/09/2023 19:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
But that's no reason why that superficial level can't accept >>suggestions/observations. The few seconds (literally, often) allocated
to the weather forecast could be made much more informative - without >>requiring any more time - by incorporating just this minor change.
If you want a more detailed forecast then watch one of the forecasts
that does a more detailed one, the forecasts after the news get very
limited time - I remember one forecaster telling how how might have
written his forecast to fit into the time allocated and then just
before he was on, he would be told they have lost a minute because
something trivial like a football match finishing late. He then had to
alter his script live as he did the forecast.
Most people are not interested anyway.
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Andy Burns writes:
You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead ofI could, but why should I have to
the MeteoGroup ones on the TV
It seems odd that you want to know the weather, but are then prepared
to wait until it happens to come on the telly
to put it another way, the TV forecasts should be more
comprehensible. I can't think what _harm_ showing the
coastlines/outlines would do to the weather forecast, except perhaps >>aesthetically.
You can pretty well guarantee any request you make to the BBC will go >nowhere, maybe try asking the Kiwis direct?
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:44:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"[]
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <uepkc9$1dddo$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 24 Sep 2023 15:24:57, >>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
Never get to follow the TV weather forecast anyway - my wife is always in >>>full flow criticising the appearance of the presenter…..(-:. Same here; even though mostly non-operational, being male I do
enjoy observing the presenter (who is usually female, on the forecasts I >>see), but this does mean I rarely absorb anything they are saying! I
have wondered if it'd be better if they weren't in vision (giving them a >>cursor or similar to point to where the weather they're describing is),
but I suspect that would be unpopular.
I once suggested they should dress for the weather to set the mood:
gloves and scarf for the cold, umbrella for the rain, beachwear in the >summer.
I remember on one of the few documentary prog.s about it they do, to some extent: one of the male forecasters said he kept a light summer suit (or similar) there for when doing BBC World forecasts, as wearing British
tweeds when doing them for somewhere tropical wouldn't seem right.
Don't think any of them do beachwear though!
NY wrote:
It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at the
end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK, where
southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland?
I seem to remember a fuss when they removed the tilt?
Andy Burns wrote:
I seem to remember a fuss when they removed the tilt?
A fuss in the sense of "please go back to the tilted image" or in the
sense of "at *last* a map that corresponds once again to the normal map
of the UK that we see in atlases"?
Weather satellites are not geostationary, are they?
They are lower orbit
and therefore multiple ones are needed to give continuous coverage. That allows an orbit that places the satellite more centrally over the UK
(doesn't it?), rather than having to be (as for geostationary) over the equator looking obliquely. But even if the cloud-cover photos are
oblique, it is a trivial software exercise to apply
parallelogram-distortion correction so the UK looks "correct". Hell, I
was writing software that did this in the early 1990s, though not for
weather photos, and it's been part of Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop for
yonks.
Don't think any of them do beachwear though!
It is expensive, which is, presumably, why my department was shrunk and
then abolished.
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:6X10EtUiWdElFwZw@255soft.uk...
I remember on one of the few documentary prog.s about it they do, to
some extent: one of the male forecasters said he kept a light summer
suit (or similar) there for when doing BBC World forecasts, as
wearing British tweeds when doing them for somewhere tropical
wouldn't seem right.
Don't think any of them do beachwear though!
I wish you hadn't implanted in my brain the mental image of Carol
Kirkwood in a bikini ;-) It's bad enough hearing her talking about
doggers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFkSVkHhWFw
I once suggested they should dress for the weather to set the mood:
gloves and scarf for the cold, umbrella for the rain, beachwear in the >summer.
I once suggested they should dress for the weather to set the mood:
gloves and scarf for the cold, umbrella for the rain, beachwear in the summer.
On 25/09/2023 14:41, Scott wrote:
I once suggested they should dress for the weather to set the mood:For a short time, there was a fad for doing the weather report from the
gloves and scarf for the cold, umbrella for the rain, beachwear in the
summer.
roof, so they had no choice.
(As an aside, my parents had to take a lot of photos of war memorials and >rolls of honour - lists of solders who died in WWI on a written register
that is often under glass - for a web site that they ran. If flash was >needed, or a window was reflected in the glass, it was necessary to take the >photo obliquely to avoid the flash being reflected back into the lens. So >parallelogram correction was needed. But I discovered that simple >parallelogram correction usually alters the aspect ratio, so I got my dad to >take another head-on photo, complete with reflected flash, to show the >correct aspect ratio so the parallelogram-corrected photo could be stretched >to restore it. http://buckinghamshireremembers.org.uk/)
The news channel does weather at least once or twice an hour anyway,
most of the time - it's used as a filler where the rest of the world
gets ad.s.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 20:28:08 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
(As an aside, my parents had to take a lot of photos of war memorials and >>rolls of honour - lists of solders who died in WWI on a written register >>that is often under glass - for a web site that they ran. If flash was >>needed, or a window was reflected in the glass, it was necessary to take >>the
photo obliquely to avoid the flash being reflected back into the lens. So >>parallelogram correction was needed. But I discovered that simple >>parallelogram correction usually alters the aspect ratio, so I got my dad >>to
take another head-on photo, complete with reflected flash, to show the >>correct aspect ratio so the parallelogram-corrected photo could be >>stretched
to restore it. http://buckinghamshireremembers.org.uk/)
Photographers used to be able to do this in the camera in the olden
days of plate cameras with bellows, which could be adjusted to keep
the plate, the lens and the subject all parallel. There's no need for 'correction' if the optics can be set up to make the geometry correct
to begin with. I think you can get attachments for modern 35mm film
cameras that will do the same.
Of course if it hasn't been practicable to do this, it's useful to be
able to make adjustments in software after the event. The camera in my
phone has a 'document' mode that can do it in software before the
picture is taken.
I've seen examples of photos taken (without further darkroom/Photoshop tweaking) on "view cameras" which allow the lens and film to be
swivelled in opposite directions to correct for "buildings that lean backwards" when the camera is tilted upwards. The degree of correction
is remarkable. I suppose the viewfinder has ruled lines that can be
compared with those on the subject so you swivel the optical plane (viewfinder and film) until the vertical sides of the building are
parallel with the rules lines on the viewfinder screen.
Providing there is adequate digital resolution, it's a lot easier to do
it after the event, especially if you need to correct for slight
out-of-true in *two* directions and to correct for rotation as well. But
if you can make the gross correction optically before taking the photo,
and only make minor corrections digitally, so much the better.
The results for the site didn't have to be perfect, but just needed to
show a reasonable rectangular view of a gravestone or Roll of Honour if possible.
Photographers used to be able to do this in the camera in the olden days
of plate cameras with bellows, which could be adjusted to keep the
plate, the lens and the subject all parallel. There's no need for 'correction' if the optics can be set up to make the geometry correct to begin with. I think you can get attachments for modern 35mm film cameras
that will do the same. Of course if it hasn't been practicable to do
this, it's useful to be able to make adjustments in software after the
event. The camera in my phone has a 'document' mode that can do it in software before the picture is taken.
Always take tall buildings from further away and keep the camera
vertical then crop out the ground between you and the building.
Now try that in a city centre, which is where you find most tall
buildings. It's a problem even with buildings such as York Minster,
which is next to a reasonable large square. Even Birmingham Town Hall
(To mention one I have tried it on) is difficult, as it was built on a
mound next to a large square, so you are always looking up at it.
St. Paul's in London is even worse as the only way you can get a decent distance from the main entrance is to go down a hill. All the views from other directions are from close up, as buildings have been put up as
close as they could get away with, so your only chance at a reasonably undistorted view is to get to the correct window. (Drones are not
permitted to be used there.)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:15:42 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,955 |