Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:34:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:59:28 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:45:03 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:


From http://www.bbc.co.UK/news/uk-13150117

Jchannon: Will the royal wedding be in HD or just upscaled to BBC One HD?

[Peter Hunt, Diplomatic and Royal Correspondent replies]

It won't, as you suggest, be filmed in HD. == filmed? Jchannon never suggested it would be filmed.
Since when (Baird?) has live television been
filmed for transmission?

The broadcasters, particularly SKY News, had wanted to. So the BBC did not paricularly want to do HD?

However, the idea was rejected by the Palace, particularly
because the cameras required would be too large. HD video cameras are too large are they?


Why does the BBC pay idiots to spout such garbage?

The page has now been updated. Peter concedes he was mixing up 3D and
HD. The programme will be 'filmed' in HD.

To OP: if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain
English.

"Televised" would do in place of "filmed".

The verb "televise" already exists.

But it would not be televised in HD except to those with HD television
sets. Therefore it would be filmed in HD but televised to most of the
population in SD .

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:03:43 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:35:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:51:00 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Scott wrote:

The page has now been updated. Peter concedes he was mixing up 3D and
HD. The programme will be 'filmed' in HD.

To OP: if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain
English.

I actually use the term 'recorded' but if people want say filmed it
doesn't bother me, I know what they mean.

but that word doesn't apply to a live broadcast.

Ah, but... the royal wedding will be "filmed", recorded, as well as
broadcast live. :-)

But surely 'recorded' would apply to the recording equipment which
will not be located where the 'filming' is taking place?

Indeed.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:07:10 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:34:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:59:28 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:45:03 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:


From http://www.bbc.co.UK/news/uk-13150117

Jchannon: Will the royal wedding be in HD or just upscaled to BBC One HD?

[Peter Hunt, Diplomatic and Royal Correspondent replies]

It won't, as you suggest, be filmed in HD. == filmed? Jchannon never suggested it would be filmed.
Since when (Baird?) has live television been
filmed for transmission?

The broadcasters, particularly SKY News, had wanted to. So the BBC did not paricularly want to do HD?

However, the idea was rejected by the Palace, particularly
because the cameras required would be too large. HD video cameras are too large are they?


Why does the BBC pay idiots to spout such garbage?

The page has now been updated. Peter concedes he was mixing up 3D and
HD. The programme will be 'filmed' in HD.

To OP: if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain
English.

"Televised" would do in place of "filmed".

The verb "televise" already exists.

But it would not be televised in HD except to those with HD television
sets. Therefore it would be filmed in HD but televised to most of the
population in SD .

I was going to suggest "videoed". There are two objections to that: it
is also "audioed", and to some people "videoed" stll means recorded on a
video tape.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:59:38 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:07:10 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:34:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:59:28 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:45:03 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:


From http://www.bbc.co.UK/news/uk-13150117

Jchannon: Will the royal wedding be in HD or just upscaled to BBC One HD?

[Peter Hunt, Diplomatic and Royal Correspondent replies]

It won't, as you suggest, be filmed in HD. == filmed? Jchannon never suggested it would be filmed.
Since when (Baird?) has live television been
filmed for transmission?

The broadcasters, particularly SKY News, had wanted to. So the BBC did not paricularly want to do HD?

However, the idea was rejected by the Palace, particularly
because the cameras required would be too large. HD video cameras are too large are they?


Why does the BBC pay idiots to spout such garbage?

The page has now been updated. Peter concedes he was mixing up 3D and
HD. The programme will be 'filmed' in HD.

To OP: if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain
English.

"Televised" would do in place of "filmed".

The verb "televise" already exists.

But it would not be televised in HD except to those with HD television
sets. Therefore it would be filmed in HD but televised to most of the
population in SD .

I was going to suggest "videoed". There are two objections to that: it
is also "audioed", and to some people "videoed" stll means recorded on a
video tape.

I'm not happy with this suggestion, but how about "cameraed"?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:26:41 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:59:38 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:07:10 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:34:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:59:28 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:45:03 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:


From http://www.bbc.co.UK/news/uk-13150117

Jchannon: Will the royal wedding be in HD or just upscaled to BBC One HD?

[Peter Hunt, Diplomatic and Royal Correspondent replies]

It won't, as you suggest, be filmed in HD. == filmed? Jchannon never suggested it would be filmed.
Since when (Baird?) has live television been
filmed for transmission?

The broadcasters, particularly SKY News, had wanted to. So the BBC did not paricularly want to do HD?

However, the idea was rejected by the Palace, particularly
because the cameras required would be too large. HD video cameras are too large are they?


Why does the BBC pay idiots to spout such garbage?

The page has now been updated. Peter concedes he was mixing up 3D and
HD. The programme will be 'filmed' in HD.

To OP: if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain
English.

"Televised" would do in place of "filmed".

The verb "televise" already exists.

But it would not be televised in HD except to those with HD television
sets. Therefore it would be filmed in HD but televised to most of the
population in SD .

I was going to suggest "videoed". There are two objections to that: it
is also "audioed", and to some people "videoed" stll means recorded on a
video tape.

I'm not happy with this suggestion, but how about "cameraed"?

'Electronically captured' should suit the most pedantic, but I still
think that 'filmed' is a more meaningful description of this form of
activity.

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its ownbroadcasts correct?
 

On Friday, April 22nd, 2011 at 10:59:28h +0100, Scott wrote:

if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain English.

That is a tricky one.

However from years pastm, a term which appears to have gone out of favor
could be used, ie "televised".

http://www.merriam-webster.COM/dictionary/televised

"to broadcast by television"

First Known Use: 1927

If one thinks about it, the term "outside broadcast" does not make
sense either, and I think is only a term used in the UKofGB&NI.

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its ownbroadcasts correct?
 

On Friday, April 22nd, 2011 at 15:07:10h +0100, Scott wrote:

But it would not be televised in HD except to those with HD television
sets.

That is akin to arguing that BBC Radio 3 is not broadcast in stereophony
because some people do not have stereophonic receivers.

Or that live programs on BBC-1 Scotland are not televised in color,
because some people only have monochrome receivers.

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Friday, April 22nd, 2011 at 10:59:28h +0100, Scott wrote:

if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain English.

That is a tricky one.

However from years pastm, a term which appears to have gone out of favor
could be used, ie "televised".

http://www.merriam-webster.COM/dictionary/televised

"to broadcast by television"

First Known Use: 1927

If one thinks about it, the term "outside broadcast" does not make
sense either, and I think is only a term used in the UKofGB&NI.

shorthand for "a broadcast from outside our studios". It doesn't say or
mean "outdoors"

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Friday, April 22nd, 2011 at 15:07:10h +0100, Scott wrote:

But it would not be televised in HD except to those with HD television
sets.

That is akin to arguing that BBC Radio 3 is not broadcast in stereophony
because some people do not have stereophonic receivers.

Or that live programs on BBC-1 Scotland are not televised in color,
because some people only have monochrome receivers.

or, some potential viewers don't even have a receiver ;-)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcasts correct?
 

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:59:38 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

I was going to suggest "videoed". There are two objections to that: it
is also "audioed", and to some people "videoed" stll means recorded on a
video tape.

Some people say "videoed" for any form of TV recording, even if a
solid state drive is being used.

Steve

--
Neural network applications, help and support.

Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com