BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.arts.drwho when
Edster got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
Mark wrote:
[...]

Or better still not use a DOG at all! Then you could see the whole of
the picture as the programme maker intended.

As a matter of interest has anyone asked the production companies and
program makers what they think about their work being defaced?

I doubt they will have any control over it. It will be a choice
between making money or not making money, if anything at all.

If the programme makers had any pride in their work they would
consider the logo and coming next banner areas as dead parts of the
screen and make sure nothing worth seeing was ever in them.

The makers of "Drawn Together" have already done something like this -
in one episode, they deliberately put Ling Ling's subtitles in the area
where they knew the banner-ad would appear, so the other characters have
(more) reason to claim they can't understand him.

--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.

Happiness will prevail

Here's interesting:

I went to www.bbc.co.uk/complaints to add my 2p-worth.
On that page I clicked on the link to "Send your complaint". This took
me to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make...nt_step1.shtml.

There I clicked on "send a comment/tell you my views". This gets me to
www.bbc.co.uk/info/contactus/ which lists a lot of FAQ-type links. I
clicked on "how to make a complaint" which takes me to .....
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints!

Now discovered that you need to click on the "make an official
complaint" link (is there such a thing as an unofficial complaint?).

I have sent the following:

I have been reading comments posted on a couple of newsgroups concerning
DOGs (Digital On-screen Graphics), especially that on BBC3 with interest.
Having just bought a plasma screen TV, I am concerned that the constant
display of a DOG will affect my screen. I have read articles which are
reportedly from the BBC which appear to dismiss such concerns, and
excuse the use of DOGs in the name of branding.
I have no need to be constantly reminded which channel I'm watching. I
generally know which channel I am watching (usually by time-shift in any
case) and am able to quickly discover the channel name using my remote
should I forget! Nor do I want my enjoyment of my new HD screen
displaying what the BBC can do very well - namely nature programmes (eg
Life in Cold Blood) and quality drama marred by visually distracting
DOGs. Because they are distracting, since they are intended to be
noticed and read by the viewer.
Please add my complaint to your growing pile of anti-DOG correspondence.


--
George

In article , Clive wrote:
Well, most novels I read already have 'a dog' at the top of the page with
the book and/or chapter name.....

(Although not obscuring the actual text of course)

That's the important bit. The metadata doesn't obscure the main data.

Digital TV already carries lots of programme information in a manner that
doesn't obscure picture or sound, which could be said to be equivalent to
book/chapter/page info in a book, so nothing useful is added to the
broadcast by duplicating it anywhere. Duplicating it on top of the picture
actually makes matters worse.

Rod.

In article , Edster wrote:
If the programme makers had any pride in their work they would
consider the logo and coming next banner areas as dead parts of the
screen and make sure nothing worth seeing was ever in them.

No. People who have pride in their work do the best work they can.
Compromising your work to accommodate the butchery you assume someone
will subsequently perform on it is more like giving up.

Rod.

On Feb 26, 2:29*pm, "Agamemnon" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 26 Feb, 13:54, Edster wrote:

Even if it is only a small minority of viewers who would do that
(which I accept), why would they want to lose them in this "age of
multi channel competition ... " they keep going on about? Surely they
would want to keep or attract as many viewers as possible if it was
all about numbers?

They want to make damn sure that every single one of the poor sods
left watching cannot forget, even for one second, what channel they
are watching.

It shows such a high level of paranoia, especially for a broadcaster
like the BBC who's funding is "guaranteed", that it's quite
disturbing.

Look that what the ******* have done to Torchwood on BBC3.

Even with a DOG **** remover Captain Jack's face is completely obliterated..

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/dog****1.jpg

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/dog****2.jpg

It might be obliterated in that particular shot (and the immediate
preceding and following frames) but compared to the bright pink logo
from the original is a vast improvement

Altogether now:

"WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?"

Regards

Ged

In , Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Edster wrote:
They already do that on BBC2, but I meant the programme makers
putting dialogue on the end credits, and then the continuity
announcer shouting something over the top of it. "My Family" and
"Dead Ringers" used to do it.

That's because continuity is often not live nowadays, but prerecorded
and automated.

On occasion, the viewing public even get to hear the recording taking
place -- over the top of the evening's programming... Always good for
a quick giggle!

--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
http://flatpack.microwavepizza.co.uk/

On 28 Feb, 16:25, Edster wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Edster wrote:

No, it just shows they have no more respect for their audience than
the broadcasters do. It's like the ones who put dialogue in the end
credits knowing full well that the viewers won't be able to hear it
over the announcer's voiceover. They know in advance what is going to
happen to it, so there's really no excuse.

Dialogue over end credits was the previous fad aimed at preventing the
viewers from reaching for the remote control. The next step I suppose
will be to have a ticker at the bottom with a now-and-next schedule on
it.

They already do that on BBC2, but I meant the programme makers putting
dialogue on the end credits, and then the continuity announcer
shouting something over the top of it. "My Family" and "Dead Ringers"
used to do it.

I've never heard the end of "My Family" crashed, though the way the
previous series had live action until the very end would be against
current BBC guidelines.

If you make a programme today, you cannot imagine what might be done
to it in five years time. No one in 2003 would have dreamt that their
work would be sized into a sub 1/4 screen window, necessitating the
use of 48pt letters to maintain readability!

Cheers,
David.

In article a31e39df-8d4a-4687-809a-
,
wrote:
If you make a programme today, you cannot imagine what might be done
to it in five years time. No one in 2003 would have dreamt that their
work would be sized into a sub 1/4 screen window, necessitating the
use of 48pt letters to maintain readability!

You never know, screen clutter might have gone out of fashion by then,
so if all the action is confined to the middle, programmes are going to
look pretty stupid on those wall sized plasma displays we'll all have
by then. Or will we be watching them as podcasts on pocket sized
gadgets instead? It'll be a big challenge to find a single programme
style that would suit both, and I suspect any programme that tries to
do it is going to seem pretty bland.

Rod.

On Feb 29, 4:57*pm, "
wrote:
On 28 Feb, 16:25, Edster wrote:



Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
* *Edster wrote:

No, it just shows they have no more respect for their audience than
the broadcasters do. It's like the ones who put dialogue in the end
credits knowing full well that the viewers won't be able to hear it
over the announcer's voiceover. They know in advance what is going to
happen to it, so there's really no excuse.

Dialogue over end credits was the previous fad aimed at preventing the
viewers from reaching for the remote control. The next step I suppose
will be to have a ticker at the bottom with a now-and-next schedule on
it.

They already do that on BBC2, but I meant the programme makers putting
dialogue on the end credits, and then the continuity announcer
shouting something over the top of it. "My Family" and "Dead Ringers"
used to do it.

I've never heard the end of "My Family" crashed, though the way the
previous series had live action until the very end would be against
current BBC guidelines.

If you make a programme today, you cannot imagine what might be done
to it in five years time. No one in 2003 would have dreamt that their
work would be sized into a sub 1/4 screen window, necessitating the
use of 48pt letters to maintain readability!

Cheers,
David.

Here are the actual guidelines for end credits!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/c...position.shtml

Comments include what the background should be, the size of the text,
the positioning, and the instruction not to contain anything critical
to plot and it credits must NOT contain speech!

--
Mr Maff

Mike Henry writes:

One ITV2 continuity announcer even had the gall to say that he felt
nervous talking over it, because there was no sound to fade down or
talk over.

So he should have done what continuity announcers always used to do and
wait for the credits to finish before making the announcements.