Click

it could be that it's 16:9 for News 24 but 4:3 for BBC World and it may be the World version that appears online - only a guess. The film look only seemed to be on the stuff from China and that may be a format transfer issue (have to see what happens next week)

http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/otherchannels/bbcworld/bbcworldtoday2002.rmBBC World - TWT

Listen to the first few seconds of the bed on that - and the last few seconds of the Click titles which can be found here.

The last bit sounds like a funked up version of that original World bed - is this a coincidence? The pieces are by different composers, sure, but does this slightly more funky version aim to establish a common theme between the different bits of music in use? What do you reckon?

I just really noticed it when I first heard it!

Er, ok... they're totally diffrent?

Erm think so too

Seems that Spencer has found his new catchphrase

"Welcome To Click, I'm Spencer Kelly, but thats not important right now... but this is..."

Unlike Stephen Coles whos was more like

"Welcome To Click Online, Im Stephen Cole and This week.... my ego infects your terrestrial viewing... and beatiful Kate brings us webscape, but first its my face... obvioulsy... duuurrr... im a newsreader...."

GET RID OF THE CATCHPHRASE... pleaaaaaaazzzzzzzz.

He sounds like some techno freak whose on steroids thats got an ego problem... which having said that he probably is and has....

Like father like son. God bless Steven Cole and his ego.

Indeed, with Stephen Cole, his protege Spencer Kelly and the almost unnerving Akhtar Khan, you could have a threat to the world's deficit of true ego and overbearing smarm... and a few other bits also.

Click's logo still stinks though, too much of an afterthought following Click Online's very clear and strong branding.

It's not you, they have. What idiot dreamt up the idea of doing that to perfectly good 50 fields per second video. Everything is infested with it now.

I know we have had this discussion before but what exactly is this film effect? Is it a different frame rate a second or is it something completely different?

Every other field is dropped, the gaps left by this are filled by repeating the previous field, so you end up with Field 1 and Field 2 being the same, just like film. However you also destroy the resolution gained from interlacing, and in effect the vertical resolution of the image drops from 576 to 288 visible lines.

You can see this from the jagged edges diagonals etc have.

This week's programme was excellent. It seemed to work a lot better - View it on the BBC World site if you haven't already seen it.