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

John Hall wrote:
In article ,
charles writes:
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.


Indeed. Why not just say that it will be broadcast in HD?

According to DigiGuide it will be broadcast in HD with 5.1 sound.

--
Adrian

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:50:07 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

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.


Well now...

In "photographic film" the word "film" refers strictly to thin layer
(the film) of emulsion on the substrate.

In magnetic recording data is recorded on a thin layer of magnetic
material on a platter, or whatever. We could call that layer a "film".


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

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

On Saturday, April 23rd, 2011 09:14:28 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:

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 ?

Yes that is a much better and accurate description of the situation.

A quick web search does indeed reveal companies specialising in
Outside Broadcast facilities in Australia, Canada, and even the USofA,
but the term has never (or almost never) used on air in North America
as far as I am aware, unlike the on air references on BBC and the ITV
company transmissions in previous years.

On the BBC -- we now go live to our outside broadcast from Kempton Park.

On ABC, CBS, NBC etc -- we now join our colleagues live in such and such stadium.

Or something like that, anyways ;)

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

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
In "photographic film" the word "film" refers strictly to thin layer
(the film) of emulsion on the substrate.

In magnetic recording data is recorded on a thin layer of magnetic
material on a platter, or whatever. We could call that layer a "film".

We could, but we don't, and as far as I know, never have.

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?
 

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:04:51 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
In "photographic film" the word "film" refers strictly to thin layer
(the film) of emulsion on the substrate.

In magnetic recording data is recorded on a thin layer of magnetic
material on a platter, or whatever. We could call that layer a "film".

We could, but we don't, and as far as I know, never have.

I was straining to make "film" fit. smile

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

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

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
In "photographic film" the word "film" refers strictly to thin layer
(the film) of emulsion on the substrate.

In magnetic recording data is recorded on a thin layer of magnetic
material on a platter, or whatever. We could call that layer a "film".

We could, but we don't, and as far as I know, never have.

I was straining to make "film" fit. smile

Yes I did sort of recognise it as diabolic advocacy rather than part of a
sincere campaign in representation of your true feelings on the matter.
However I think we should be concerned at the casual way in which people
with no knowledge or concern for the details or the history simply trample
over useful distinctions that have real meanings, because of the danger
that it will eventually become impossible to talk about anything because
nobody will know what the words mean.

Now what was I talking about...?

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?
 

"John Hall" wrote in message
...


The BBC's Diplomatic and Royal Correspondent is possibly not the best
person to answer such a question. One wouldn't expect him to know much
about the technology, and I'm sure that that's not why the BBC pay him.


Actually, I don't think I buy that. The difference between HD and 3D is so
obvious, so basic, that yes, I would expect anyone who stands in front of a
camera should know the difference.

SteveT

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

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bill Wright
saying something like:

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

It's not short and snappy.
How about 'vidded'?
"I'm gonna vid it."

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

In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
"John Hall" wrote in message
...


The BBC's Diplomatic and Royal Correspondent is possibly not the best
person to answer such a question. One wouldn't expect him to know much
about the technology, and I'm sure that that's not why the BBC pay him.


Actually, I don't think I buy that. The difference between HD and 3D is
so obvious, so basic, that yes, I would expect anyone who stands in
front of a camera should know the difference.

30 years ago, The BBC's former Science Correspondent didnt' know the
difference between a good picture and a bad (snowy) picture at home saying
"I wouldn't know - I'm only a journalist." This despite the fact that he
saw good pictures in the studio ever day. I suppose he got to be Science
Coreespondent by knowing how to pronunce the words.

--
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 Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:49:06 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bill Wright
saying something like:

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

It's not short and snappy.
How about 'vidded'?
"I'm gonna vid it."

Hmm. That brings to mind Julius Caesar's "veni, vidi, vici": I came, I
saw, I conquered.
(The Classical Latin pronunciation of "v" was "w")

Today that might be "veni, vidi, wiki": I came, I vidded it, I
wikipediaed it.


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