Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 11/11/2012 01:19, Ian wrote:

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it is
almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Have no fear, it is only a video, honest.

I've seen similar on other UK channels where the screen is split 5
minutes towards the end of a programme to show a trailer (without sound)
of the following programme.

Although now toned down, the BBC are using children's TV to get the kids
used large animated DOGs and voice overs during programmes.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 11/11/2012 09:28, Max Demian wrote:

As described it just sounds like what I can do with my Humax - I have one
button that skips forward one minute, and another that skips back 7 seconds
if I've gone too far (both configurable) - useful, but hardly automatic
ad-skipping.


A very useful feature and similar to what I have on my Topfield PVR
Red = jump forward 2 minutes
Green = jump forwards 1 minute
Yellow = jump forward 30 seconds
Blue = jump back 15 seconds
--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
I was surprised to see the film was three and a half hours long. But it
was
put on whilst we were playing pool. As per the above I was then surprised
that they had the intro credits, then a load of ads, then five mins of
film, then a load of ads. Ad nauseam, as PE say.

Crap. I wonder what rules American TV channels have to comply with,
equivalent to the old IBA rules that dictated maximum number of breaks,
minimum length of programme between breaks and maximum length of breaks per
screen hour.

Advertising is a necessary evil. If they approached it with the attitude "we
don't like it either, but it's the only way to pay the bills" then that
would be better. In other words, have as much of the advertising between
rather than within porogrammes and have the small number of long breaks
rather than a large number of short breaks. And FFS use very clear "End of
Part One" and "Part Two" captions to distinguish clearly between ignorable
adverts and watchable programmes. And don't be tempted to bend these rules
just because it allows you to bring in more money.

I've not seen an advert on TV for years: I record almost everything and
watch it later, and I skim through the adverts, stopping only to identify
the start and end of them so I can remove them with VideoRedo.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In message , Max Demian
writes
"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a minute
of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of advertising on
the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert break before the
start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening, another advert break and
then the title sequence It's one reason that I didn't bother with the
channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it is
almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Exactly whereabouts in the programme was this?

There were 3 or 4 mins to go when it appeared.

It is or was quite common for this to happen when the credits started to
roll, but to actually interrupt the climax of the programme was
exceptional.

They also used to insert an animated character on-screen during
programmes to promote new series.

These would appear in all programmes for weeks ahead of the series
launch.

I've recently seen some channels ending the break with a promo for the
programme that's on.

Media gradiots rule.
--
Ian

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Victor Delta" wrote in message
...
"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote in message
...

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between
programmes but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them
without being able to skim through them.

but it's not trying to do that

It's trying to stop a system that allows you to automatically jump to
the end of them without (you) knowing where that end is

It's unclear whether it does that, or whether it just allows you to skip
a predetermined length - maybe commercial breaks are always the same
length in US.

"And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely -
rather than fast-forwarding through them - at the press of a button."

If it were completely automatic you wouldn't need to press a button.

Surely the button referred to is the one which selects whether you want
to use the Autohop feature or not? Once selected, it then operates
completely automatically.

That's not how I read it. I would have thought it would be a menu option
or similar if it was something you just had to activate.

As described it just sounds like what I can do with my Humax - I have one
button that skips forward one minute, and another that skips back 7
seconds if I've gone too far (both configurable) - useful, but hardly
automatic ad-skipping.

--
Max Demian

--
Max Demian

My Panasonic does the job very nicely thank you. It automatically places a
marker at the beginning and end of each advert break, then pressing the
"Skip" button at the start of the break will take it automatically to the
precise end of the break regardless of its length. Sure it's not perfect, it
makes mistakes sometimes but they are rare enough to remind me what a good
job it usually does.

Allan

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

NY wrote:

I've not seen an advert on TV for years: I record almost everything and
watch it later, and I skim through the adverts,

Me too. Indeed, when comedic references to them are made, I find
myself completely in the dark.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:52:03 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , John Hall
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT
want to be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you
can ignore anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in
their right mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the
hopper might find they sold more recorders if they could be set to
skip the Fox programmes as well. :-)

This court case was presumably in America, though, going by the
names of the other TV companies mentioned. It might be that in that
country people watch Fox for lack of anything better.

Seen from the other side of the pond, my impression that people watch
Fox News because they don't want their ideas to be undermined by
being exposed to reality. However since I don't watch the relevant
stations I'm only being guided by what others report and having
noticed what crap appears here from related organisations. (Plus
having seen how awful US TV was some decades ago.) So maybe Fox News
is wonderful and all the criticism is a jealous fantasy put about by
other media.

Slainte,

Jim


Have no fear, it is still as bad as you remember. Well, it was two years
ago, when we left there.
--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:58:13 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , NY
wrote:


Having watched a bit of TV in America I've yet to see anything
worth the electrons to power the TV. And American TV networks
haven't got the idea of "End of Part One" and "Part Two" captions
or even break bumpers
- anything that gives the viewer some way of distinguishing
programme from advert. And they have this stupid idea of showing a
few seconds of opening titles and then going an advert break within
literally a minute of starting the programme.

Many years ago I went on my first trip to the USA. My into to their
TV was seeing that the 'Superman' film was on TV. (That shows you how
long ago this was! :-) )

I was surprised to see the film was three and a half hours long. But
it was put on whilst we were playing pool. As per the above I was
then surprised that they had the intro credits, then a load of ads,
then five mins of film, then a load of ads. Ad nauseam, as PE say.

I was a waste of time to try watching the film. So we just played
pool. The earthquake during the game was more interesting. :-)

I later spent some weeks in Kansas. After about 5 mins to check, I
gave up any idea that TV there was ever worth watching. I started to
understand how and why so many Americans seem to equate 'World' with
'USA' in their thinking as there was almost nothing from outside the
USA that said much.

But of course it may be different nowdays.

Slainte,

Jim


No it's not. They still don't even acknowledge Canada as a country, and
it's right next door. And very large. Many prominent people in North
American News and Entertainment come from Canada, but make more money in
the US, and hardly any Americans know that they are actually Canadian.

--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:19:20 +0000
Ian wrote:

In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a
minute of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of
advertising on the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert
break before the start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening,
another advert break and then the title sequence It's one reason
that I didn't bother with the channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it
is almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Have no fear, it is only a video, honest.

It also seems to be a rule that all credits are squeezed down to a size
that makes them impossible to read, and often speeded up as well. I see
the same thing back here in the UK, but thankfully, not as bad (yet).
--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:36:15 +0000, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:19:20 +0000
Ian wrote:

In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a
minute of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of
advertising on the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert
break before the start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening,
another advert break and then the title sequence It's one reason
that I didn't bother with the channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it
is almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Have no fear, it is only a video, honest.

It also seems to be a rule that all credits are squeezed down to a size
that makes them impossible to read, and often speeded up as well. I see
the same thing back here in the UK, but thankfully, not as bad (yet).

An explanation I've seen is that they don't really want to show the
credits but are forced to "for legal reasons", and that credits are of
no interest to viewers. It is similar with copyright dates. Someone once
asked why these are in roman numerals rather than ordinary digits so
that people could understand them. The "explanation" was that copyright
dates are not for viewers, they are only there for legal reasons.

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