« Topics
1234...6566676869
ttt351 posts since 15 Aug 2015
unless you were Peter Powell, who threw in the towel when Steve 'Silk' Hurley's ''Jack Your Body'' reached no 1.


Of all the records to cause a DJ to throw the towel in, that really shouldn't be one of them. And I speak as someone who isn't a dance music fan generally.
bilky asko5,138 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
I have noticed reduced brightness applied to TOTP clips, both on the 80s repeats and from 90s clips on TOTP2, with flashing light setups that were obviously considered acceptable in the 80s/90s but not now.

I've also seen it applied to a scene during Brooklyn Nine-Nine on E4 that contained flash photography, evidently we have different standards to the US.


I'm sure I've read here that our standards are, by quite a long way, the strictest in the world.
noggin13,794 posts since 26 Jun 2001
Channel 4 are notorious for slowing footage down or applying filters when there are flashing lights during programmes/films.


Yes - but legally they have little choice other than to edit the material out entirely. They can't chose to ignore a fail and just broadcast this content - Ofcom requires that all recorded content passes a Harding FPA or equivalent test. It's not negotiable. If it fails Harding, it can't be broadcast. So it either has to be removed or repaired.

The only exceptions are live programmes or very fast turnaround inserts - where an apology / warning can be used in extremis.
noggin13,794 posts since 26 Jun 2001
I have noticed reduced brightness applied to TOTP clips, both on the 80s repeats and from 90s clips on TOTP2, with flashing light setups that were obviously considered acceptable in the 80s/90s but not now.

I've also seen it applied to a scene during Brooklyn Nine-Nine on E4 that contained flash photography, evidently we have different standards to the US.


The UK has probably the strictest standards regarding Photosensitivity issues of any broadcaster around the world. All recorded shows really have to pass a Harding FPA or equivalent test (that checks for flashing images, red flashes, spatial patterns that can cause issues and extended lower threshold issues). if content fails it either has to be replaced or modified to ensure it passes. Reducing contrast, slowing down elements or field/frame blending to smear content can all be techniques that allow content that fails to pass.
1
bilky asko gave kudos
WW Update4,261 posts since 6 Feb 2007
I don't remember hearing photosensitivity warnings or hearing about photosensitivity restrictions on television in any other country. Warnings that a certain scene or program "may include flash photography" is a pretty good indicator that one is watching a channel regulated by Ofcom.
noggin13,794 posts since 26 Jun 2001
I don't remember hearing photosensitivity warnings or hearing about photosensitivity restrictions on television in any other country. Warnings that a certain scene or program "may include flash photography" is a pretty good indicator that one is watching a channel regulated by Ofcom.


Japan has pretty strict regulations these days too I believe. The US has some legislation but doesn't seem to mandate testing.

One interesting area is that a number of overseas channels (TV3 Sweden for instance) are Ofcom regulated as they are licensed in the UK. They use the Ofcom 'P' logos for product placement warnings - as they should - but I don't know whether they are that hot on PSE stuff.
1
WW Update gave kudos
Neil Jones4,512 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
Of course Japan will have regulations on flashing images, thanks to that infamous Pokemon incident.

Mind you I saw the Poltergeist film on Sky Cinema the other night and the amount of flashing images in that particularly around the static on the TV in the film was probably just on the borderline of acceptable IMO.

That being said, a lot of visual effects seem to apply in video and cinema films that it's questionable sometimes whether if it was a TV show they'd get away with it, unless there's a higher threshold for a cinematic film when its aired on TV?
noggin13,794 posts since 26 Jun 2001
Of course Japan will have regulations on flashing images, thanks to that infamous Pokemon incident.

Mind you I saw the Poltergeist film on Sky Cinema the other night and the amount of flashing images in that particularly around the static on the TV in the film was probably just on the borderline of acceptable IMO.


It's very simple. It passes or it fails. Often things that pass easily look like they should fail, and stuff you wouldn't necessarily consider to be problematic will fail badly (the spatial pattern tests can cause US flags in graphics to cause a fail for instance)

Theere are a number of different testing devices that are approved - and they don't all behave identically though...

Quote:

That being said, a lot of visual effects seem to apply in video and cinema films that it's questionable sometimes whether if it was a TV show they'd get away with it, unless there's a higher threshold for a cinematic film when its aired on TV?


The rules for all TV content are the same - they aren't different for different sources or genres. I don't know if there are any regulations for cinema - but the wider field of view (which could make things worse) and the generally dimmer (which could make things better) light levels could change the parameters.
TIGHazard263 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Of course Japan will have regulations on flashing images, thanks to that infamous Pokemon incident.

Mind you I saw the Poltergeist film on Sky Cinema the other night and the amount of flashing images in that particularly around the static on the TV in the film was probably just on the borderline of acceptable IMO.

That being said, a lot of visual effects seem to apply in video and cinema films that it's questionable sometimes whether if it was a TV show they'd get away with it, unless there's a higher threshold for a cinematic film when its aired on TV?


Wasn't this the incident that led to the Harding test over here?



Arguably it's worse than the Pokemon one because at least with that you had to be watching the show, this was an advert that could come on at any time.
noggin13,794 posts since 26 Jun 2001
There was a 'Flash Gordon' device that the BBC used before Harding for a similar test. ISTR it was in use well into the 00s - but may date back earlier.

There were infamous 'banks of flash guns' sequences that were broadcast in News (I think one of Diana, Princess of Wales for instance) that were so bad that they were only allowed to be repeated in slow mo.
TIGHazard263 posts since 3 Jan 2014
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
There was a 'Flash Gordon' device that the BBC used before Harding for a similar test. ISTR it was in use well into the 00s - but may date back earlier.

There were infamous 'banks of flash guns' sequences that were broadcast in News (I think one of Diana, Princess of Wales for instance) that were so bad that they were only allowed to be repeated in slow mo.


This isn't TV related, but it's a question I've had for a while. Presumably there are actors who suffer from epilepsy, how is this dealt with in regards to the paparazzi?