NG
And yet we probably hear "Mark Austin's report contains flashing images" in the news more than anywhere else, even though the VT reports are all pre-recorded too; and yet on the rolling news channels they don't warn of flashing images every time they cross live to a press conference.
Live shows with pre-recorded items are often produced on a timescale that doesn't allow Harding FPA testing and re-editing to rectify problems, and are exempt from the testing that complete pre-recorded shows undergo.
This is why news programmes continue to warn if they are intentionally showing something they have already seen and believe may cause a problem. Because they warn close to the transmission of the item (not at the beginning of the show)
noggin
Founding member
The point is that all mainstream shows shouldn't need an apology (they're pre-tested and edited so as not to be a problem)
And yet we probably hear "Mark Austin's report contains flashing images" in the news more than anywhere else, even though the VT reports are all pre-recorded too; and yet on the rolling news channels they don't warn of flashing images every time they cross live to a press conference.
Live shows with pre-recorded items are often produced on a timescale that doesn't allow Harding FPA testing and re-editing to rectify problems, and are exempt from the testing that complete pre-recorded shows undergo.
This is why news programmes continue to warn if they are intentionally showing something they have already seen and believe may cause a problem. Because they warn close to the transmission of the item (not at the beginning of the show)
MW
Pardon?
Mark Austin is ITV, ITV News is all about celebs, Celebs have flashing photography, so it all makes sense
Pardon?
NE
Pardon?
lately in instead of saying so , they have a warning at the Bottom of the screen saying " Contains Flash photography"
Mark Austin is ITV, ITV News is all about celebs, Celebs have flashing photography, so it all makes sense
Pardon?
lately in instead of saying so , they have a warning at the Bottom of the screen saying " Contains Flash photography"
DV
News Story today .....
Ofcom has ruled that Westlife's performance on The X Factor broke broadcasting regulations for using rapidly flashing lights that could have triggered epileptic seizures in some viewers.
The media regulator found that the bursts of laser lighting used in the performance, which aired on ITV1 in October last year, caused a flashing effect five times faster than the level recommended as safe for viewers susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy.
Three viewers complained to Ofcom about the flashing images and the "distress these images caused to themselves and potentially to other photosensitive viewers".
more ...
Media Guardian
Ofcom has ruled that Westlife's performance on The X Factor broke broadcasting regulations for using rapidly flashing lights that could have triggered epileptic seizures in some viewers.
The media regulator found that the bursts of laser lighting used in the performance, which aired on ITV1 in October last year, caused a flashing effect five times faster than the level recommended as safe for viewers susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy.
Three viewers complained to Ofcom about the flashing images and the "distress these images caused to themselves and potentially to other photosensitive viewers".
more ...
Media Guardian
FR
Alternatively, as has been demonstrated, simply change the field sequence and the Harding will pass the exact same footage (which looks identical to the viewer) without a murmur. Numerous engineers, including senior ones at the BBC, have little time for the Harding in consequence.
The Harding FPA is a machine/test algorithm that detects flashing sequences (and other patterns) that are likely to trigger photosensitive reactions. If you fail this your programme is deemed to have content likely to be problematic, and you have to re-edit (in some cases re-shoot) to be compliant and be allowed to transmit
Alternatively, as has been demonstrated, simply change the field sequence and the Harding will pass the exact same footage (which looks identical to the viewer) without a murmur. Numerous engineers, including senior ones at the BBC, have little time for the Harding in consequence.
NG
Alternatively, as has been demonstrated, simply change the field sequence and the Harding will pass the exact same footage (which looks identical to the viewer) without a murmur. Numerous engineers, including senior ones at the BBC, have little time for the Harding in consequence.
Changing the field sequence no longer looks identical to the viewer in every case - if you get it wrong you can get that horrid "jerky vision" (as seen on BBC London News recently) - and the motion is altered. It doesn't always cause a problem on 25p content (remember out of phase telecines looking fine?) - but altering the field sequence on native interlaced content (which is easier to fail a harding on) can be a real issue, so you're altering the motion and thus would expect a different result in some situations.
I think the Harding FPA guys are quite open in saying that their algorithms are far from perfect - and as they try to improve their algorithms stuff that previously passed now fails and vice versa. They are definitely an improvement on "Flash Gordon" though - which was a joke.
There is also the question - do you need an HD Harding, or is checking an SD downconversion sufficient?
Also - personally I'd rather have a machine that failed safely, rather than passed stuff that it shouldn't. (The point about Photosensitivity is that many people who have the condition are unaware that they do - and could be triggered at home by watching TV. Not something I'd want on my conscience)
noggin
Founding member
The Harding FPA is a machine/test algorithm that detects flashing sequences (and other patterns) that are likely to trigger photosensitive reactions. If you fail this your programme is deemed to have content likely to be problematic, and you have to re-edit (in some cases re-shoot) to be compliant and be allowed to transmit
Alternatively, as has been demonstrated, simply change the field sequence and the Harding will pass the exact same footage (which looks identical to the viewer) without a murmur. Numerous engineers, including senior ones at the BBC, have little time for the Harding in consequence.
Changing the field sequence no longer looks identical to the viewer in every case - if you get it wrong you can get that horrid "jerky vision" (as seen on BBC London News recently) - and the motion is altered. It doesn't always cause a problem on 25p content (remember out of phase telecines looking fine?) - but altering the field sequence on native interlaced content (which is easier to fail a harding on) can be a real issue, so you're altering the motion and thus would expect a different result in some situations.
I think the Harding FPA guys are quite open in saying that their algorithms are far from perfect - and as they try to improve their algorithms stuff that previously passed now fails and vice versa. They are definitely an improvement on "Flash Gordon" though - which was a joke.
There is also the question - do you need an HD Harding, or is checking an SD downconversion sufficient?
Also - personally I'd rather have a machine that failed safely, rather than passed stuff that it shouldn't. (The point about Photosensitivity is that many people who have the condition are unaware that they do - and could be triggered at home by watching TV. Not something I'd want on my conscience)
FR
Are there any documented cases of it actually happening anywhere in the world?
For example, American TV allows images to flash at a rate that would be deemed unacceptable in the UK. If PSE triggered by flashing on TV was a real issue, don't you think the most litigious country in the world would be rather more strict about it than it is? And wouldn't you think, given the much larger population size, there would be numerous cases of it happening in the USA? If there are, can you find them?
I'm not saying that PSE isn't an issue at all, but the evidence suggests strongly that the UK TV industry sets the threshold too high. And why is it just TV, anyway? DVDs, BDs and cinema films are not subjected to any kind of PSE screening - so why are people apparently going to be affected by TV broadcasts but not other forms of visual media?
Also - personally I'd rather have a machine that failed safely, rather than passed stuff that it shouldn't. (The point about Photosensitivity is that many people who have the condition are unaware that they do - and could be triggered at home by watching TV. Not something I'd want on my conscience)
Are there any documented cases of it actually happening anywhere in the world?
For example, American TV allows images to flash at a rate that would be deemed unacceptable in the UK. If PSE triggered by flashing on TV was a real issue, don't you think the most litigious country in the world would be rather more strict about it than it is? And wouldn't you think, given the much larger population size, there would be numerous cases of it happening in the USA? If there are, can you find them?
I'm not saying that PSE isn't an issue at all, but the evidence suggests strongly that the UK TV industry sets the threshold too high. And why is it just TV, anyway? DVDs, BDs and cinema films are not subjected to any kind of PSE screening - so why are people apparently going to be affected by TV broadcasts but not other forms of visual media?
NG
noggin
Founding member
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/17/video.seizures.update/
A couple of Japanese cartoons are the most widespread examples.
AIUI there were reports of seizures after the airing of the London 2012 promo video as well.
It is surprising how many people in the industry think it is all made up, and that it's just another to add to the list of barriers to production put up by the "programme prevention department". However although I'm not one who suffers from seizures - I can certainly tell some of the sequences that would cause problems, as they appear very unpleasant for me to watch, and I have to look away. I can imagine similar sequences causing more sensitive people some severe unpleasantness.
I think it has become more of an issue, partially because tubed cameras had much more lag so that until CCDs arrived it was more difficult to generate live pictures with the required flashing (much easier with animation - hence the cartoon and London 2012 stuff)
A couple of Japanese cartoons are the most widespread examples.
AIUI there were reports of seizures after the airing of the London 2012 promo video as well.
It is surprising how many people in the industry think it is all made up, and that it's just another to add to the list of barriers to production put up by the "programme prevention department". However although I'm not one who suffers from seizures - I can certainly tell some of the sequences that would cause problems, as they appear very unpleasant for me to watch, and I have to look away. I can imagine similar sequences causing more sensitive people some severe unpleasantness.
I think it has become more of an issue, partially because tubed cameras had much more lag so that until CCDs arrived it was more difficult to generate live pictures with the required flashing (much easier with animation - hence the cartoon and London 2012 stuff)
SC
scottishtv
Founding member
I looked up the performance on You Tube.
Warning: contains flashing images:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9AfhRxgyio
I have to admit, that is a pretty amazing lighting sequence. I assume the most offending bits are around the 2:52 and 3:50 marks?
Warning: contains flashing images:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9AfhRxgyio
I have to admit, that is a pretty amazing lighting sequence. I assume the most offending bits are around the 2:52 and 3:50 marks?
FR
That's one report from 13 years ago, in reference to a VERY extreme usage of flashing images. Can you cite examples relating to the UK, preferably from before the introduction of the relevant guidelines?
Take the opening titles of Cheggers Plays Pop; the rapid colour strobing they use would be rejected by Harding today. Those titles were used for many years, so why weren't PSE-sensitive British kids being affected in their hundreds?
Sorry, no sale. "Reports of" carries about as much weight as "rumours of" unless you can provide a specific cite.
Is it really surprising, given what I said in my previous mail about American TV? If the broadcasters in the most litigious country in the world aren't being sued into oblivion by the parents of PSE-sensitive kids, despite routinely allowing fast-cut images at a rate that would be unacceptable in the UK, doesn't that rather suggest that the UK is being far more paranoid about it than it needs to be?
I also think a lot of people in the industry are cynical of the massive contradiction of PSE screening only being required for broadcast TV and not any other forms of visual media. Where are all the cases of people suffering PSE attacks after watching movies at the cinema, or on DVD/BD?
If you can come up with convincing rebuttals to the above (you did rather swerve around them in your response to my last post) you might get more people in the industry on-side. Otherwise, boxes like the Harding are dangerously close to being analogous to the rock - or the magic woofle dust - that keeps tigers away.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/17/video.seizures.update/
A couple of Japanese cartoons are the most widespread examples
A couple of Japanese cartoons are the most widespread examples
That's one report from 13 years ago, in reference to a VERY extreme usage of flashing images. Can you cite examples relating to the UK, preferably from before the introduction of the relevant guidelines?
Take the opening titles of Cheggers Plays Pop; the rapid colour strobing they use would be rejected by Harding today. Those titles were used for many years, so why weren't PSE-sensitive British kids being affected in their hundreds?
Quote:
AIUI there were reports of seizures after the airing of the London 2012 promo video as well
Sorry, no sale. "Reports of" carries about as much weight as "rumours of" unless you can provide a specific cite.
Quote:
It is surprising how many people in the industry think it is all made up
Is it really surprising, given what I said in my previous mail about American TV? If the broadcasters in the most litigious country in the world aren't being sued into oblivion by the parents of PSE-sensitive kids, despite routinely allowing fast-cut images at a rate that would be unacceptable in the UK, doesn't that rather suggest that the UK is being far more paranoid about it than it needs to be?
I also think a lot of people in the industry are cynical of the massive contradiction of PSE screening only being required for broadcast TV and not any other forms of visual media. Where are all the cases of people suffering PSE attacks after watching movies at the cinema, or on DVD/BD?
If you can come up with convincing rebuttals to the above (you did rather swerve around them in your response to my last post) you might get more people in the industry on-side. Otherwise, boxes like the Harding are dangerously close to being analogous to the rock - or the magic woofle dust - that keeps tigers away.