The journalism equivalent of producing a book essay based on watching the film.
Sloppy corner cutting by GMG staffers, exacerbated by an arrogant host who thought he knew more about a report - based on only a half-arsed note - than the person responsible for it.
This is where having two presenters that are not trained journalists lets them down. It has let This Morning down several times in the past also when they've tried to interrogate a guest.
Whilst Ben may not be a trained journalist, Kate came up through the TV News ranks. She was a presenter at Meridian, was one of the News 24 launch presenters (Matthew Amroliwala shared a timslot across the week with Kate on News 24 - though they didn't present together) before moving to GMTV.
That said - can you imagine Breakfast's Louise and Dan or Charlie and Naga making the same mistakes or conducting the interview in that manner, and would you expect a Breakfast production journalist to create a briefing of that quality from that source? I wonder if this gives the lie to GMB's current 'click bait' priorities ? Maybe they are prioritising 'getting Piers and Susanna trending on twitter' over basic journalism?
Sounds about right. There was one number in 2016 that was exceptionally severe and prolonged. This year I was in the arena. Now I don't suffer but the Hungarian number made me feel a little queasy for a bit when in the golden circle.
I'm a little surprised the EBU don't have a blanket technical standard on this given they've pioneered so many other open/common formats, standards and procedures. Infact I'm quite surprised Eurovision hasn't produced a Pokemon-style incident somewhere yet.
Off topic a bit - but I guess TOTP is now re-versioned to avoid PSE failures.
The UK's legislation and regulation is amongst the toughest in the world. It's an issue taken far more seriously here than almost anywhere else. There is now an element of personal liability as well - so production team as well as the broadcaster can be held liable for a breach, and any harm caused to their audience, by their broadcast. Many other countries pay lip service to it - but very few mandate approved testing regimes and thus don't prohibit the broadcast of most recorded content that has failed (as they don't test)
The bulk of the EBU's members therefore probably don't consider it an issue - so the EBU hasn't standardised testing for it.
If you look at the formal tech delivery specs of many European countries, they are almost a complete cut and paste of the pan-UK DPP specs (which are very similar to the BBC's original tech specs). SVT's in Sweden even keeps the same chaptering and numbering scheme... However they specifically change the FPA stuff.
Photosensitive Epilepsy and Quality Control
Every programme submitted for transmission must satisfy the Ofcom Photosensitive Epilepsy guidelines, which are detailed in the QC section of this document. Any programme failing to meet these requirements, or any of the other QC requirements, may be rejected and returned to the supplier for repair.
Please be aware that the Producer of the programme as well as the Broadcaster may be liable for any action taken by Ofcom or a member of the public, for a breach of the Photosensitive Epilepsy requirements.
vs Swedish equivalent
Quote:
Photosensitive Epilepsy and Quality Control
SVT is not subject to prevent photosensitive epilepsy by regulation – see section 3.2.
UK QC details
Quote:
3.2. Photosensitive Epilepsy (PSE)
Flickering or intermittent lights and certain types of repetitive visual patterns can cause serious problems for viewers who are prone to photosensitive epilepsy. Children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable.
All UK Television channels are subject to the Ofcom BROADCASTING CODE 2016 which states: Section 2.12
Television broadcasters must take precautions to maintain a low level of risk to viewers who have photosensitive epilepsy. Where it is not reasonably practicable to follow the Ofcom guidance (see the Ofcom website), and where broadcasters can demonstrate that the broadcasting of flashing lights and/or patterns is editorially justified, viewers should be given an adequate verbal and also, if appropriate, text warning at the start of the programme or programme item.
The Ofcom guidance is here.
3.2.1. PSE testing
Programmes for file delivery must be tested using any file based PSE device that meets the guidance given by Ofcom. The DPP maintains a list of devices, available here.
Live and as live programmes may continue to use the Cambridge Research FPA 2.5 PSE device.
Additional requirements for Tape and Live programmes are given in the Tape and Live versions of the DPP delivery specifications.
Broadcasters require a PSE report (pass certificate) to be delivered with all programmes.
• PSE reports must be in pdf form and named according to the broadcaster’s naming convention.
• The relevant metadata details (paperwork for tape) must be completed.
• It is recommended that live programmes produce and keep a copy of the PSE checks carried
out during the final rehearsal (if there is one) and the transmission.
Any failure whatsoever will result in rejection of the programme, and any affected sections must be repaired and re-tested before acceptance.
3.2.2. PSE – broadcast warnings
In exceptional cases, verbal and/or on-screen text warnings may be used at the beginning and during the programme. Each broadcaster has a policy on the inclusion of content that may cause harm or offence and will only be considered if:
• demonstrable attempts have been made to correct or replace the images, and
• the relevant content is completely integral and necessary to the context of the programme, and
• permission to use the relevant content has been cleared by the broadcaster and documented in writing by those responsible for the commissioning/editorial content.
No broadcaster allows a programme maker to authorise the use of warnings for material that fails a PSE test. Advance notification and planning requirements will vary by broadcaster.
and Swedish QC details
Quote:
3.2. Photosensitive Epilepsy (PSE)
Flickering or intermittent lights and certain types of repetitive visual patterns can cause serious problems for viewers who are prone to photosensitive epilepsy. Children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable.
SVT is not subject, by regulation, to prevent photosensitive epilepsy.
3.2.1. PSE testing
See supplement ‘A Product Guide for File-Based Photo Sensitive Epilepsy Testing’ in the document ‘Technical Specification for the Delivery of Television Programmes as Files to SVT’.
3.2.2. PSE – broadcast warnings
Verbal and/or on-screen text warnings may be used at the beginning and during the programme if demonstrable attempts have been made to correct or replace the images, and the relevant content is completely integral and necessary to the context of the programme, and permission to use the relevant content has been cleared by SVT.
As you can see - there are VERY different attitudes to this subject - and until other European countries have content regulation legislation as tough as the UK, I don't think things will change much. On Demand services are an interesting area in regard to this. AIUI Ofcom have no current regulatory framework to cover content provided by people like Amazon Prime video - even when aimed specifically at a UK audience.
On the other hand - I don't know how seriously TV3 in Sweden (which is Ofcom regulated, as they are licensed in the UK not Sweden to bypass Swedish advertising legislation) take their responsibilities in this regard. (They do follow the Product Placement code)
Last edited by noggin on 23 October 2018 2:23pm - 10 times in total
Interesting. What happened in Kyiv and Lisbon? Kyiv was mostly (but not entirely) SVT people but I know Lisbon was a somewhat more local team with some international positions (Bjorkman, Appelt etc) and like you say they used a Brit, which I know was new to the role this year.
Commentary I assume comes down the centre channel?
Commentary is added locally in control rooms in each competing country (so each country can do their own thing, and only a relative small number of countries take the 5.1 audio AIUI)
The UK's control room, as mentioned by Mel, is in Uxbridge, near Ruislip (IMG Studios I suspect)
The commentary, I'd expect, is mixed sympathetically with the host mix - so rather than a 'one size fits all' approach, one that is informed by the way the host is mixing it would be appropriate?
If you wonder how strict our rules and regs are in this regard, count how many flashing images warnings there are during a UK broadcast of Eurovision. The BBC literally plaster astons on screen during virtually every postcard complete with a verbal warning from Graham, Scott or Rylan.
Not strictly true. There are frequent flashing images/strobe effect warning captions, but the verbal warnings from the commentators are far less frequent.
AIUI the straps are used before any song that has failed a Harding test during dress rehearsal the night before, with verbal warnings used more sparingly (but usually before severe failures as well as the occasional generic warning)
I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC logged their concerns with the EBU as well...
Do the vocals still come through the centre channel, as they did during the famous reverse karaoke incident in 2008?
Entirely depends on who is the sound supervisor each year.
Some years it's a full 5.1 mix with centre live vocals, backing track front left and front right, and ambience in the surrounds (the common Swedish approach they often, but not always, use on Melodifestivalen) (*)
In 2014 it was a front stereo mix with silence in the centre, and ambience in the rears (4.0 or 4.1 effectively)
Other years there is a Front Left, Centre, Front Right mix with vocals spread across the three channels, and ambience in the rears, so a different 5.1 mix.
(*) Melodifestivalen stopped this method for a while as the Swedish tabloids got wise to it, and started publishing 'what they sound like live' extracts from the centre channel. Now Melodifesivalen allows backing track vocals, which are L and R, the differences in some cases were quite marked... Given that Melodifestivalen is hugely influential on ESC (as so many people from MF have worked on the ESC some years - both in production and technically - what MF does is often similar to what the ESC does)
It's reasonable to accept that might be a possibility, but it doesn't mean it's a certainty. The BBC does pay some talent very well. Given that Susanna left Breakfast for GMB - I can't believe a pay increase wasn't a major reason for her move...
Although being able to work in London would have surely been a crucial factor too.
Significant, but I wouldn't say crucial. I highly doubt Susanna took a pay-cut to avoid the commute to Salford.
I suspect ITV made her an offer she literally couldn't afford to refuse.
I attended the Altice arena every night. The sound mix in the arena, especially for the hosts, was diabolical. The problem is, talking to a crewmember in my hotel bar (I unwittingly booked myself into a crew hotel, next to the one DR's team stayed in!) they can't have it as loud as you'd have it for a concert. But it was quiet enough that you could have a conversation with the person next to you.
Broadcast sound mix (no idea about FoH) was done by a Brit sound supervisor. It was technically in 5.1 - but the surround ambience was incredibly minimal.
Incidentally, SVT always have Edward Af Silen paired up some someone else except during SVT hosted contests, where a solo commentator has taken on the role with Edward writing the script. Unsure if he commentated for Sweden in 2010 as he wrote the script for NRK's show that year.
Pretty certain he did - the opening gag was about how expensive a latte was I think.
Could someone explain to me what TV Lines mean when it comes to a camera? I was looking at various specification and came across how many TV Lines a camera has. A quick google search shows it’s also appears to be referred to as the lines of horizontal resolution. Based on that definition it says it’s essentially the number of columns in a picture.
I was looking at one camera that’s popular over in the US for outside broadcasts now - the Sony HDC-4300L which has 2000 horizontal lines at the center in 4K. Does that mean there are 2000 lines on either side of the center? Because that is significantly less than the 3840x2160 that’s expected in UHD.
I’ve seen it in other manufacturers for regular HD listing 1000 TV lines.
AIUI tv lines in horizontal terms are defined by the number of vertical black lines you could see on a white background at the limit of your system. To resolve 2000 black lines against white at the limit you'd need ~ 4000 pixels (4000 pixels alternating between white and black would let you resolve 2000 vertical lines)
This is obviously a gross simplification ignoring the fact that TV is based on samples, that you have to consider the MTF of your lens and optical sensor system etc. - but as a rule of thumb your TVL resolution is around half your horizontal sample count in an ideal system (assuming equal resolution 3-chip cameras) I think.
AIUI camera manufacturers quote the equivalent full-width resolution that you'd achieve for the performance of given areas - so if the centre of the camera sensor is quoted as 2000 TVL that's the effective resolution of the system at the sensor (if scaled to the full width), however chances are the performance at the edges of the sensor is reduced, so will have a lower TVL spec. It's effectively a way of saying that the centre is theoretically about as good as possible, but the edges degrade a bit.
Annoyingly this definition is at odds with the vertical line count figure - which is the total number of horizontal scanning lines.
Some frankencamera used by ABC News and James Longman covering Prince Harry and Meghan’s trip to Australia. Looks like the camera is a DSLR with an adaptor for an ENG lens. I’m a bit puzzled as to why they chose this setup.
Hardly a Frankencamera - that's a C300 with a lens adaptor to let it use an ENG-style zoom lens (instead of a native EF mount lens) by the look of it.
The C300 and C300 Mk II are both EBU certified (unlike almost all DSLRs) and are workhorses of factual TV production as they give you that nice, large-sensor, shallow DoF and let you use prime lenses. Nothing wrong with using a C300 at all (though that lens on it is a bit of a compromise)
The C300 can generate gorgeous pictures - there's a reason it's used so widely in TV.
Is always a useful site for those kind of details for studios both past and present. (Beware metric feet though. A metric foot is 30cm not the 30.48cm that an imperial foot would be...)
Call me stupid, but would it not be less confusing to use metres instead?
Or is there an imperial metre measuring 40 inches as opposed to the metric 39.37 inch metre?
Remember that these aren't just abstract measurements, they tie up to markings on the studio walls - so legacy and history dictate the 'standards' to a degree. If you are building and setting a studio which has measurements on its walls in Metric Feet, there's a lot of sense in building and plotting in Metric Feet etc.
These studios were built before the UK had totally switched over to metric measurement in the building industry too - so I think Metric Feet was seen as a useful hybrid.
(IMG Studios I suspect)
