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

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?

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

On 22/04/2011 2:45 AM, J G Miller wrote:

Fromhttp://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?



that's the exact comment they made when asked about 3D - maybe they are
confused.


--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

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?

Is 'filmed' not legitimately used in a generic sense like video
footage, dialling phone numbers, fuse boxes etc?

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

"Scott" wrote in message ...


Is 'filmed' not legitimately used in a generic sense like video
footage, dialling phone numbers, fuse boxes etc?


Yes, it is. Of course it's technically wrong, but I think JG was being a
bit harsh on that particular point.

This business about HD cameras being too big, though - surely that's
********. I'd be amazed if the event isn't "filmed" with HD cameras. It
would be perverse not to.

I think Peter Hunt got mixed up between HD and 3D.

SteveT

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

In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ...


Is 'filmed' not legitimately used in a generic sense like video
footage, dialling phone numbers, fuse boxes etc?


Yes, it is. Of course it's technically wrong,

and of course, real film people "shoot".

--
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 writes:

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 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.
--
John Hall

"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)

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?

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.

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

John Hall wrote:
In article ,
J G Miller writes:

Why does the BBC pay idiots to spout such garbage?

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.

Then he should use journalistic rigour, and check his facts with someone that
does know the answer in greater detail, working for a broadcaster he's
surrounded by such individuals !

--
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 broadcastscorrect?
 

Steve Thackery wrote:

This business about HD cameras being too big, though - surely that's
********.

Yes it is, they take up no more space than the most recent SD cameras, and
less space (and require a lot less light) than the old EMI-2001 and LDKs used
at Royal Weddings in the 70s and 80s

http://www.desinformado.com/2008/01/more-than-30-cameras-%E2%80%93-sony-hdc-3300-and-hdc-1500-%E2%80%93-to-capture-on-field-and-in-studio-action-for-the-big-game/

3G camera rigs are more cumbersome, but the lighting requirements are no worse
than HD.

http://www.live-production.tv/system/files/imagecache/FW_GALLERY/21_3D_Mirror_Rig_Cape_Town_1.JPG

--
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?
 

In article , 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.


why not use the word "shot" as used in the firm industry?

--
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 11:45:44 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , 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.


why not use the word "shot" as used in the firm industry?

I can just imagine security officers overhearing a cameraman "shooting
the royal family on the balcony".

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

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.
--
Adrian

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

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.

--
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 10:59:28 +0100, Scott
wrote:



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.

Recorded?
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - please reply to the group)

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

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. :-)


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

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

In article ,
Scott wrote:
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.

Recorded. Then it doesn't matter what format it goes to.

--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

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.

'Filmed' by nature means recorded, not live. Unless you want to go back to
a weird Baird system.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

On 22/04/2011 10:59, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:45:03 +0000 (UTC), J G
wrote:


Fromhttp://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.

Reminds me of the time that director Tony Scott was visiting LA to work
on a co-production.

Immigration at LA airport asked him the usual 'reason for visit?'

'I'm here to shoot a pilot' - and he was promptly arrested...

G

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

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.

From the OED (with major snippage):

televise, v.
Etymology: Back-formation television n. on the model of verbs
that end in -(v)ise...

1.
a. trans. To transmit (pictures, programmes, scenes, etc.) by
television; formerly also, to transmit television pictures of (a
person). Also fig.

1927 Glasgow Herald 14 Jan. 9/1 The distance over which
pictures can be televised.
....
1979 S. Brett Comedian Dies ix. 95 This..Awards lunch... Big
do, being televised.

1983 Economist 23 July 24/1 The BBC's Panorama programme on
blacks and the police, televised on July 18th.

b. intr. for pass. To be (well, etc.) suited for television
presentation.
....

2. intr. To make a television broadcast.

1948 L. Birch Something Done (Central Office of Information) 15
Many performers who are under contract to the big music-halls are
not allowed to televise.
....

televised adj.

1934 Jrnl. Inst. Electr. Engineers 75 86/2 The difference in
detail between a good Baird televized picture and the cathode-ray
picture.

1946 Astounding Sci. Fiction July 63/1 A man he had seen many
times before in televised addresses.

1951 M. Ehrlich Big Eye i. 34 The blonde began to take off her
robe in a kind of televised strip tease.

1978 S. Brill Teamsters iii. 80 Fumbling through televised
testimony like this to protect Hoffa was worth it to Fitzsimmons.

--
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 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?

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

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:44:03 +0000 (UTC), 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.

Except that Radio 3 is broadcast in stereo to the whole country and
BBC One is not broadcast in HD to the whole country. At least not on
terrestrial TV.

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:49:49 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:

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.

Just as some people say 'filmed' whether photographic film is used or
not - which is exactly where the thread started ... :-)

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

"Scott" wrote in message ...


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


And I find it extraordinary that we are actually discussing this! :-)

SteveT

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

Scott wrote:

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

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



--
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?
 

"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!)

SteveT

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

In message , 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.

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

:¬)
--
Ian

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:57:27 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message ...


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


And I find it extraordinary that we are actually discussing this! :-)

So do I (even as one of those responsible). I think it's because it's
a bank holiday :-)

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:04:12 +0100, "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!)

The Royal Wedding should be renamed the Royal Content Generation
Event.

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

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.

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

Bill

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:17:18 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

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.

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

We've done that one. Moved on from there.