If you thought our DOGs are bad...

This is a composite of several somewhat OT postings I have just read in a US
newsgroup:

"This is reminiscent of much television news these days. One of my local
stations has a morning show now where only the top right quarter (roughly)
of the screen is actually devoted to video representing people talking and
the content of the show. The rest is various scrolling tickers,
advertisements, weather updates and other distractions.

Let me tell you, on an old non-HD TV on plain old cable this looks
absolutely terrible. The video is too small to be anything but pixellated
blobs doing pixellated things, and most of the text is barely legible. About
the only part of the screen that is functional is an animal adoption feed
(seriously!) that shows cute animals up for adoption from the local SPCA."

"The latest encroaching trend that I'm noticing more and more is a CONSTANT
fixed, semi-transparent ad for another show the network is promoting.

It used to be just their LOGO would be on screen all the time, and that was
distracting enough from the content that I would always be thinking about
algorithms for adaptively recognizing and removing it.

But now that has been expanded to a static ad -- throughout the program --
for some OTHER program I have no interest in. Sigh."

"If you channel surfed the other night and caught any of CSI Miami, you
would probably also have been appalled at the "pop up video" style bubbles
(along with irritating mechanical noise to announce their arrival) sharing
inconsequential things about the scene on air."

And we thought the new BBC3 DOG was bad enough. I can't wait to experience
the CSI bubbles! Anyone got the wire cutters?


--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

....snip...

We've already had "oh, did you know that Neighbours is moving to Five"
popping up in amongst CSI and CSI: NY.

Paul DS.

Paul D.Smith wrote:
We've already had "oh, did you know that Neighbours is moving to Five"
popping up in amongst CSI and CSI: NY.

Would there really be much overlap between Neighbours and CSI viewers?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Paul D.Smith wrote:
We've already had "oh, did you know that Neighbours is moving to Five"
popping up in amongst CSI and CSI: NY.

Would there really be much overlap between Neighbours and CSI viewers?

I doubt it. I suspect every program on Five got similar treatment.

Paul DS.

Jeff Layman wrote:
This is a composite of several somewhat OT postings I have just read
in a US newsgroup:

"This is reminiscent of much television news these days. One of my
local stations has a morning show now where only the top right
quarter (roughly) of the screen is actually devoted to video
representing people talking and the content of the show. The rest is
various scrolling tickers, advertisements, weather updates and other
distractions.
Let me tell you, on an old non-HD TV on plain old cable this looks
absolutely terrible. The video is too small to be anything but
pixellated blobs doing pixellated things, and most of the text is
barely legible. About the only part of the screen that is functional
is an animal adoption feed (seriously!) that shows cute animals up
for adoption from the local SPCA."
"The latest encroaching trend that I'm noticing more and more is a
CONSTANT fixed, semi-transparent ad for another show the network is
promoting.
It used to be just their LOGO would be on screen all the time, and
that was distracting enough from the content that I would always be
thinking about algorithms for adaptively recognizing and removing it.

But now that has been expanded to a static ad -- throughout the
program -- for some OTHER program I have no interest in. Sigh."

"If you channel surfed the other night and caught any of CSI Miami,
you would probably also have been appalled at the "pop up video"
style bubbles (along with irritating mechanical noise to announce
their arrival) sharing inconsequential things about the scene on air."

And we thought the new BBC3 DOG was bad enough. I can't wait to
experience the CSI bubbles! Anyone got the wire cutters?

I can see the time coming very soon when I'll only be watching DVDs, no way
am I going to tollerate DOGs or any other video graffiti.

In message , Adrian
writes
Paul D.Smith wrote:
We've already had "oh, did you know that Neighbours is moving to
Five" popping up in amongst CSI and CSI: NY.

Would there really be much overlap between Neighbours and CSI viewers?

I should imagine that anyone remotely interested in Neighbours would a)
already be watching it by now and b) already have been watching it on
BBC and have known for some time that it was moving to Five.


--
Sean Black

On 21 Feb, 09:45, "Jeff Layman" wrote:
This is a composite of several somewhat OT postings I have just read in a US
newsgroup:

"This is reminiscent of much television news these days. One of my local
stations has a morning show now where only the top right quarter (roughly)
of the screen is actually devoted to video representing people talking and
the content of the show. The rest is various scrolling tickers,
advertisements, weather updates and other distractions.

Let me tell you, on an old non-HD TV on plain old cable this looks
absolutely terrible. The video is too small to be anything but pixellated
blobs doing pixellated things, and most of the text is barely legible. About
the only part of the screen that is functional is an animal adoption feed
(seriously!) that shows cute animals up for adoption from the local SPCA."

"The latest encroaching trend that I'm noticing more and more is a CONSTANT
fixed, semi-transparent ad for another show the network is promoting.

It used to be just their LOGO would be on screen all the time, and that was
distracting enough from the content that I would always be thinking about
algorithms for adaptively recognizing and removing it.

But now that has been expanded to a static ad -- throughout the program --
for some OTHER program I have no interest in. Sigh."

"If you channel surfed the other night and caught any of CSI Miami, you
would probably also have been appalled at the "pop up video" style bubbles
(along with irritating mechanical noise to announce their arrival) sharing
inconsequential things about the scene on air."

And we thought the new BBC3 DOG was bad enough.

Remind me again - how much is the compulsory subscription which
everyone with a TV has to pay whether they watch these channels or not
in the USA?


OK, serious question (which I don't know the answer to): do HBO
broadcasts have DOGs?

btw, did you know that in the USA, broadcasters put the logo in the
bottom right because it is the location where viewers notice it the
least; in the UK, broadcasters (especially the BBC) keep the logo at
the top left because it is the location where viewers notice it the
most. They have reported this from their own research. It's also kept
within the 4:3 caption safe area, even for programmes which are
flagged as 16:9, just to make sure everyone sees it, even those which
crop everything to 4:3.

Did you also know that in the USA, the discovery channel have a
"clever" way of adding their logo which makes it almost invisible
apart from the start and end of programmes unless you actually look
for it.

In other words, apart from our four legacy analogue terrestrial
channels, our "free to air" broadcasters are trying _much_ harder to
make us see their logos than their American counterparts.

However, I won't begin to compare the content (though the gap is
narrowing!).

Cheers,
David.

On 21 Feb, 13:43, Steve Wolstenholme
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:01:38 -0800 (PST),
"
wrote:

Did you also know that in the USA, the discovery channel have a
"clever" way of adding their logo which makes it almost invisible
apart from the start and end of programmes unless you actually look
for it.

The best way to make a logo invisible is not to use one at all. Who
would actual want to find a logo? Logos do nothing apart from annoying
people who hate them.

I'm the last person to defend logos (DOGs) - my point was that our UK
licence fee funded public service broadcaster appears to have a far
more aggressive attitude to them than many commercial broadcasters
across the pond.

Making the indefensible, even more indefensible.

Cheers,
David.

On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, "
wrote:
On 21 Feb, 13:43, Steve Wolstenholme
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:01:38 -0800 (PST),
"
wrote:

Did you also know that in the USA, the discovery channel have a
"clever" way of adding their logo which makes it almost invisible
apart from the start and end of programmes unless you actually look
for it.

The best way to make a logo invisible is not to use one at all. Who
would actual want to find a logo? Logos do nothing apart from annoying
people who hate them.

I'm the last person to defend logos (DOGs) - my point was that our UK
licence fee funded public service broadcaster appears to have a far
more aggressive attitude to them than many commercial broadcasters
across the pond.

Making the indefensible, even more indefensible.

DOGs have been present on mainstream TV channels in many, it not all
other countries for over twenty years. It's the UK where if anything
they're a relatively new fangled thing.

On a visit to the US (sleepy old Kansas) way back in 1989, I saw all
three of the local network affiliates using end credit squeezing. One
of those appalling, crass, or tasteless ideas you need to look across
the Atlantic Ocean for the origins of.

On 21 Feb, 16:19, Mark Carver wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, "

wrote:
On 21 Feb, 13:43, Steve Wolstenholme
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:01:38 -0800 (PST),
"
wrote:

Did you also know that in the USA, the discovery channel have a
"clever" way of adding their logo which makes it almost invisible
apart from the start and end of programmes unless you actually look
for it.

The best way to make a logo invisible is not to use one at all. Who
would actual want to find a logo? Logos do nothing apart from annoying
people who hate them.

I'm the last person to defend logos (DOGs) - my point was that our UK
licence fee funded public service broadcaster appears to have a far
more aggressive attitude to them than many commercial broadcasters
across the pond.

Making the indefensible, even more indefensible.

DOGs have been present on mainstream TV channels in many, it not all
other countries for over twenty years. It's the UK where if anything
they're a relatively new fangled thing.

To be fair, when you have 20+ channels on an analogue system with no
other method of identification, there is an argument for some kind of
on-screen ID at times.

With digital, this "need" goes away.

On a visit to the US (sleepy old Kansas) way back in 1989, I saw all
three of the local network affiliates using end credit squeezing. One
of those appalling, crass, or tasteless ideas you need to look across
the Atlantic Ocean for the origins of.

I'll believe you that the worst of what I hate originated there, but I
question whether the BBC should take it up so vigorously, and suggest
that some of the US networks can be restrained in comparison.

I can't imagine a PBS station getting away with the current BBC Three
logo, for example.

Cheers,
David.