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

On Friday, April 22nd, 2011 at 16:49:49h +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

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

But that is okay, because they are not saying videotaped.

In Personal Computing terms, people for years have referred to
video capture and/or TV capture cards btw.

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

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.

Sometimes known as a "Remote".

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:14:53 -0000, "Nick"
wrote:

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.

Sometimes known as a "Remote".

I thought that's what the people in London thought of Salford :-)

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

J G Miller wrote:

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.

No, it's a term used in countless other counties internally within
broadcasters, though rarely referred to on air. In fact, even in the UK, I
rarely hear it used by presenters these days ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:28:34 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ...

Well, in my company, TV cameras are described by some marketing folk as,
'Content Capture' devices.


Yeah, "capture" isn't a bad term. (Oh, dammit! I've joined in!)

A fortnight ago I captured a cold.


But did you broadcast it?

Steve

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

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?

Because otherwise they'd have to be employed by the NHS

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

In article , Ian wrote:

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.

Considering the anachronistic element in royal events, how about,
" Their souls will be stolen in HD".

Have they actually got souls? Don't you have to sell it when you join
the firm?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

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

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
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.

'Filmed' implies non-live. How about 'televised'?

To me, "filmed" implies the use of film, which is why it sounds so daft
when there isn't any. The distinction between film and electronics may
not be important to the punters who simply watch the end result, but
you'd think that it would be sufficiently important to the broadcasters
that they'd want to keep it for their own convenience, given that they
have to know which is which in order to use it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

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

In article , J G Miller wrote:

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

But that is okay, because they are not saying videotaped.

In Personal Computing terms, people for years have referred to
video capture and/or TV capture cards btw.

The meaning of the expression "for years" depends on how many years you've
been around. I can remember when recording a television programme used to
be called "telerecording", and within the BBC it was called "film
recording" or "FR", because it did use photographic film, videotape not
having been invented yet.

Since audiovisual material these days can be stored on film, tape, disk or
chip, we really need a suitably generic term that could include all of
them. The word "recording" has been suggested a few times, and is neither
awkward to pronounce nor an offence against reason.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

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

In article , J G Miller 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 that it would be incorrect to call something a live broadcast because
some people will be watching a recording of it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/