Warnings of flashing images into TV programmes/news items

Well I don't see any tigers - do you? *peers*

The grumbles I've heard a couple of times relate to Professor Harding establishing the industry standard with a monopoly supply. At 12K for a single licence it's probably the most expensive bit of software most production houses will buy, and they have to buy it as there is no acceptable alternative.

As I understand it, you don't have to run material through the Harding software to comply with OFCOM, you only have to review the content to ensure that there are no sequences which could cause an issue; this can be done by reviewing it manually and, for smaller production houses, that is probably more cost-effective in the short term. The Harding FPA just allows it to be done in the background in volume. It is expensive but then again a lot of software is as expensive - particularly transcoders.

I know a few places that moaned about having to have grade A monitors because they were expensive and they didn't really understand why you needed them but that's probably another story...

A freind tried to get a music video for his band submitted to a major broadcaster a couple of years back, he was told it would not be accepted without a Harding certificate.

A harding certificate may not be written into the OFCOM code, but having one is pretty much the only way you can say that you have taken all reasonable steps if material is later found not to comply. Smaller production houses send the material out to a larger production house first and pay for the testing, something that isn't cheep - especially if you fail and have to retest. Some broadcasters like the BBC perform a Harding test is part of the 'Technical Review' instead of asking for the certificate up front, but if you fail it the material gets returned to you for repair. As a result you may then miss your delivery deadline. Unusual things cause a test to fail sometimes, such a a camera panning across a regular pattern, so it is worth testing everything 'just in case' if you are working to tight deadlines.


Only time I've seen 12K spent on Transcoding software was when some very specialist codecs and hardware control licences were added to the base system licence. A small or one-man production house wouldn't be using any of that kit, and more than likely Quicktime or a free alternative will do what they need to do the job to exactly the same standard. There is no alternative to give you a Harding test certificate.

I'm not disputing that the Harding test is a good thing, and over the years it will have saved lives. But Harding being a monopoly will be costing the industry more than if it wasn't.

That is a VERY bold claim - is there an iota of evidence to support it? How many recorded cases are there of people actually dying from PSE attacks brought on by watching TV from before the Harding was introduced? And where are all the cases of people dying *now* because they're watching DVDs or BDs, or films at the cinema, none of which need to be PSE-screened?

We're back to magic woofle dust again...

Well I know that world service interactive (assuming you are from bush or used to be there) spent more than that for transcoding software per instance several years ago although it would be wrong of me to state on what but Pro coding software like Agility and Flip Factory are in that region of cost. Yea, it's mad when you compare to radio production costs but the price is dictated by the market place (and the amount of development which goes into each product). If there's no cheaper alternative to the Harding FPA - that's hardly Harding's fault. If a broadcaster requires a harding report rather than a written assurance of compliance with the OFCOM regulations, then this too is hardly Harding's fault. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of it; it's not one of the nicest things to use or support but it serves a purpose.

As for you mate's video - there are facilities houses who could run the content through the FPA - for a price - in exactly the same manner that they will transcode and upload content for you. So there are always ways of getting stuff sorted, but compliance in all areas is an area you just have to play the game with...

Well, Harding suggest it can be life saving on their website so it must be true.

On a more serious note, I've seen the effects of Epilepy first hand in a family member. Anything that reduces the likelyhood of someone having a fit has the potential to save lives, and there is no disputing that.

Several years ago being the key thing, there was no 'New Media' licence for Flipfactory then which has all the specialist codecs and control stuff stripped out. I'm sure Radioman made fantastic use of the bundled video codecs it had back then, not. No doubt the change in price point had something to do with Rhozet Carbon Coder being released offering the same baseline facilities for about half the cost. Both cost around $5000 now, a long way short of £12000. Which brings us on to:
Not sure I agree on that. It would be very difficult to do the same job as the Harding without using their algorithms, or do it in a sufficiently similar way to attract the attention of the lawyers. The transcoding providers mentioned above consider 'Harding Test' as an often requested feature, but the fact none of them provide it should give an indication of how easy and cost effective it is to licence. I do know more about this, but commercial confidence prevents me saying any more.
Not at all, and I don't blame the network either. They are probably sick of wasting their time failing footage unsuitable for broadcast. As a one off it was easy enough to find a friend in soho who would test it as a favour, but on a commercial basis you can't do that.

my apologies, I took your posts at face value - I was trying to provide solutions rather than get involved in some feeding of the trolls.

sorry

So, to reiterate, how many recorded cases are there of people actually dying from PSE attacks brought on by watching TV from before the Harding was introduced? Where are all the cases of people dying *now* because they're watching DVDs or BDs, or films at the cinema, none of which need to be PSE-screened?

It's remarkable how silent the proponents of the Harding become when asked, reasonably enough I think, to provide those answers. If the Harding is now an essential piece of equipment, then it's only fair to assume that there's a genuine need for it, and that need should be demonstrable via solid evidence. So where is it?

And if you can't provide those answers, how about opining on the situation in America? How come the most litigious society in the world isn't suing its broadcasters left, right and centre over deaths from PSE, given that images on American TV can and do flash at a faster rate than in the UK? It's only logical that the vastly greater population size of the USA equates to a much greater number of PSE-sensitive viewers than the UK, after all.

I'm not going to name the software publisher who was very candid about trying to get the harding algorithms licensed at IBC last year. If you think that's trolling, then so be it. BTW There is no 'World Service Interactive' so I took my best guess at which system you were talking about.


Although it might not appear that way, I do agree with you to a point. If there were regular incidents of PSE seizures in front of the TV proving fatal then I'm sure Harding would be linking to them from their site, but as it is they can only manage 1 since 2005. There were some stats about the extent of Epilepsy posted on the first page of the thread, and I've no reason to doubt them. Also mentioned on the first page was that the move to CCD cameras and the use of digital effects mean that there is now more chance of creating a flashing image sequence than there once was. So should we just do nothing instead against the increased risk becuase of the small number of people potentially affected?

If the analysis algorithms were a cheap plugin for FCP or any of the major QA or Transcode platforms then compliance would be easy to achieve and be as second nature as checking for legal colours and dynamic range. Nobody would complain about it as much despite the small number of people it is of benefit to. IMHO what polarises opinion about Harding is that it is expensive for what it does and is difficult to integrate into an automated workflow, but everyone has to buy one or pay to use someone elses because there's no alternative - despite the very small number of people that benefit.

There is a file-based version that will plough through nominated folders of Quicktimes and analyse them automatically I believe.

Why just TV broadcasters? Why not movies and DVDs/BDs too, or indeed flashing images online? You'd think movies in particular, which are watched in darkness with a screen filling almost your entire field of view, would be far more dangerous to PSE-sensitives than TV broadcasts.

I'm not saying that nothing at all should be done, but I do think that the example of the American TV industry demonstrates that the UK regulations are excessive and ought to be relaxed.