Watchdog brings back Annie

Film cameras capture 25 frames per second, and usually use a 180 degree shutter, which means they only expose the film for 50% of the frame duration.

In other words although the film camera is shooting at 25 frames a second, it only exposes the film for 1/50th of a second. If you run film (or 25 frame per second progressive video) at 1/25th second shutter the motion blur is very noticable and things look very smeary.

Standard def interlaced video cameras capture 50 images per second, using interlacing, and each of these 50th second images is only sent at half the vertical resolution of the video frame, as a field. This is why video is sometimes described as having 25 interlaced FRAMES, and 50 interlaced FIELDS. This means that there are twice as many images per second, and usually each field is exposed for 1/50th of a second. This means that much more motion is captured, and twice as many images are sent, and you get smoother, less jerky motion.

Because producers and directors think film has a higher budget look than video, it is now common to process interlaced standard def video to look like film, or to shoot progressive standard def or HD video at 25 frames per second. (Only a relatively small number of standard def camcorders can shoot progressive 25fps and no standard def studio cameras do AFAIK)

This means that most SD stuff shot on video but with a film look requirement is shot 50 fields interlaced and given a post-production film effect (rather than being shot 25fps progressive native video). Most decent HD cameras allow you to shoot natively at 25fps progressive, so there is no post-production procesing required.

The early way of doing the SD film-effect was to drop every other field, and repeat the other. This meant you got 25 different images per second with a 1/50th second shutter, but at half the vertical resolution. It looked like it had film motion, but it was very jagged, soft and unpleasant. (This is a dead easy process to do though - most gallery DVEs and edit suites can do it). Then people started filtering this so it looked soft, but not as jagged. Then people experimented with mixing the two fields together a bit (75% from one, 25% from the other), which retained most of the film motion but improved resolution a bit reducing the softness and jaggedness, but introducing some more motion blur. It was still pants. (I think this is what Casualty tried the first time)

However the best way of doing this is to do things properly, and do a full motion tracking system where you track the direction vectors of images moving in the frame and interpolate entirely new 25fps frames from the information both 50 field per second images, to give much higher vertical resolution. This is how the SD Doctor Who stuff and other high end film-effects are done, using standards converters like Alchemist, and pretty good results can also be obtained using something quite a bit cheaper like an ARC from S&W.

However it is important that camera operators shoot for the film effect, as because the number of images per second is halved, motion (such as panning) that looks fine 50 field interlaced, can break up when converted to 25 frame progressive.

Many cheap film-effects are done in Avid or FCP though - and unless a very good plug-in is used, the results can be pants.

Top Gear have a nice dynamic, they film-effect their location films, but keep the studio and track stuff interlaced. I suspect this is what Watchdog wanted to emulate, but they may not have been able to explain it to their post guys clearly enough? (Or the post guys may have edited in a way that made this tricky?)

A bit dramatic for entrance music - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mqlth/?t=18m55s

Not a personal surprise this, it's lost viewers, significantly so ...

Media Guardian

... and thanks Noggin for the Filmic explanation,

Thought the piece on the PS3 was one of the most biased and well rubbish pieces I've seen on television for a long time. Just completely innacurate.

Interesting stuff.

I think part of the problem is that Anne Robinson is now a parody of her former self. When she originally did Watchdog she was genuinely Paxman-esque in a pure journalistic way, but subsequently exaggerated her act into a pantomime villain when she did the Weakest Link. That persona seems to have stuck and she now comes across on Watchdog as insincere and tongue-in-cheek. This was evident when she supposedly "grilled" Duncan Bannatyne; her style seemed to suggest "I'm part of your club now Duncan" - and the interview was a bit of a comedy charade.

She's also been openly boastful in recent years of becoming ultra-rich and part of the celeb circuit, so it's harder for the skint, beleaguered consumer at home to believe she has any empathy with them. No longer can she say to a spokesman for a large company that "£50 is a lot of money to anyone" with sincerity and a straight face.

And I'm extremely uncomfortable with the way she's taken to mocking and teasing the consumers who've come in to the studio to talk about their problems. She seems totally confused as to whether she's an entertainer or a journalist.

It's a crying shame Watchdog isn't as good as it used to be. I always thought the 90's Annie generation to be supurb and was on the publics side in getting results (esp. the Hoover Holiday giveaway).

But this isn't up to standard and neither is Annie unfortunately as much as I'd like her to be. She's jst speaking up to people and has forgotten her interviewing techniques. The blame isn't totally on Annie though. The production crew pre-recording it and making some items very biased has ruined the show and is a shadow of it's former self with Nicky and Julia getting many results every week and not just one like this is doing.

Watchdog still definately has a life, it's just I don't think it can continue how it is now or it needs to fix its flaws quickly.

I was infuriated by the way the item on alternative medicine was handled in last night's programme.

I would expect the BBC to expose out-and-out frauds, but this wasn't one of them. There were many people who were prepared to appear in public to support the man named in their item. The psychosomatic or psychologically beneficial effects of alternative healing were largely ridiculed by the programme.

Everyone is entitled to their view, of course, regarding a controversial subject. But the BBC made their position clear by placing this man on their wall of shame as a rogue.

I will be quite tempted to make a formal complaint to Ofcom myself if one doesn't appear shortly on t'internet.

(PS: Fab explanation by noggin on 'filmic' broadcasting)

Conclusive proof that the entire charade is now pre-recorded for people who kind of hadn't been able to work it out before now. The presence of the phrase "By the time this shows goes out".

Pity the website continues to claim the show is live on Mondays at 7:30, which is very interesting considering it goes out on Thursday at 8 having been pre-recorded in the first place, making the whole "you could be with use next week" point potentially useless.

The Playstation 3 package was so one-sided it was absolutely ridiculous. Yes, in any mass-produced product there are always going to be faulty items, dead out of the box items, items that fail ridiculously quickly and items that last forever and a day. This is why we have warranties, this is why we have the Sale of Goods act and why we have consumer law. They're not there to fill out the statute books. Watchdog of old would have held Sony to account and dragged them over the coals rather than park a van outside the London offices and repair their faulty product with an independent.

Fortunately the horrible filmic effect is dead and buried, however I beg to question the decision to send "famous people" out on doing guest reports on issues. Last week EastEnders actress Melissa Suffield, this week former Brookside actor and re-born singer Ray Quinn. What next, Zippy from Rainbow?

In its current state I very much doubt Watchdog is going to have much of an influence on anything. Yes it got AuctionWorld shut down, Accident Group into Administration and pre-wired plugs back in the day but meh, the game's up I reckon for this watered down disaster.

No.

The man made bogus claims about his rate of healing cancer without evidential proof.

NOBODY has proof of a cure for cancer yet. That man appeared to be playing on peoples' darkest fears and manipulating desperate people to his point of view. I wouldn't be bought. Would you?

And yes, I speak from experience in my family. Cancer is something without a doubt nearly everyone is scared of, and terrifying once you have the disease. To play on peoples' emotions - and to even recommend they disregard chemotherapy, the so far most popular and effective proven treatment for cancer, is despicable.

From the Cancer Act of 1939...

Source: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1939/cukpga_19390013_en_1

No. He made claims and there was no evidence presented either way in the programme. That doesn't make them bogus or deny the existence of any evidence.

I don't think he was advertising anything, and if he was it wasn't mentioned in the programme. The reputation of such healers are normally passed by word of mouth. It's a matter of personal choice whether people use alternative forms of treatment. I don't think it's for the BBC to make moral judgements by presenting such a biased point of view.

All religions also make unsubstatiated claims, but many people find comfort by believing them without the need for any evidence. I can't see Watchdog putting a picture of the Prophet Muhammad or Budda on their 'wall of shame', somehow.