Blurovision

Actually, she is rather insecure though often won't admit it.

As for the picture, who knows. I'd doubt that the blur had much to do with
her, more likely the equipment used or some engineering cock up.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Woody" wrote in message
news
She's 67 and one of the vainest women on the planet. What else do you
expect?



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

In message , Ivan
writes
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC
one Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was
unusually soft and lacking in the usual detail for this program,
switched over to HD on chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked
near as good as the Ross show usually looks, even in standard
definition, I have my own thoughts on this, however any clues anyone?

My immediate reaction was Promist.

--
"All religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual
immaturity of the human race, before it had learned the obligations to speak
the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its God to be truthful and
understandable in his communications" - Friedrich Nietzsche

In message , Brian
Gaff writes
Actually, she is rather insecure though often won't admit it.

As for the picture, who knows. I'd doubt that the blur had much to do with
her, more likely the equipment used or some engineering cock up.

One suspects that the consensus amongst broadcast engineers would be
deliberately softened, and amongst everybody else that it was a cock up!
--
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a
black cat that isn't there.
-- Robert A Heinlein

Graham. wrote:
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC one
Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was unusually
soft and lacking in the usual detail for this program, switched over to HD
on chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked near as good as the
Ross show usually looks, even in standard definition, I have my own
thoughts on this, however any clues anyone?


Probably has a clause in her contract or something.

It probably was a condition of her appearing.

A vision control engineer from LWT told me a story about an American film star
that was appearing on Aspel's chat show some years ago. Her entourage insisted
that any close ups were softened up.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

A little over a decade ago, I was in temporary accommodation for a
year or so, with all my music was in storage. Scanning for something
worth listening to on the radio and cable tv, I happened on Country
Music TV as it was playing a half decent track, so there I stayed.

It always caused me some amusement the tricks they used to avoid
showing that any artist was pregnant or getting to look old. Pregnant
girls were always shot face on, so the bump was less noticeable. Lines
on the face were illuminated face on so they didn't cast shadows.
Grey hair was, of course, dealt with by the ubiquitous
non-blonde-out-of-a-bottle look. But that itself was a problem for
those with dark eyebrows, so those would be mercilessly plucked until
they looked like a pair of insect feelers.

There were many other dubious techniques used, such as subliminal
cleavage shots, see through clothing, etc.

And that's not to mention the cliches ...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:21:56 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:

I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC one
Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was unusually soft
and lacking in the usual detail for this program, switched over to HD on
chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked near as good as the Ross
show usually looks, even in standard definition, I have my own thoughts on
this, however any clues anyone?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:54:47 +0100, Ivan wrote:
Peter Watson wrote:
On 02/10/2009 21:21, Ivan wrote:
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on
BBC one Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was
unusually soft and lacking in the usual detail for this program,
switched over to HD on chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it
looked near as good as the Ross show usually looks, even in standard
definition, I have my own thoughts on this, however any clues anyone?

Lee Soft or Promist by the look of it


Cheers, a quick google told me everything I wanted to know..
http://www.tiffen.com/promist.htm.

From the promist website:
" ...creates a special "atmosphere" by softening excess sharpness and contrast. "
So I would expect we can see more of this as HD gains penetration.
Why do we bother trying to make TV pictures more realistic, when
the artistes (my dear!) then counter it all?
~

pete wrote:

From the promist website:
" ...creates a special "atmosphere" by softening excess sharpness and contrast. "
So I would expect we can see more of this as HD gains penetration.
Why do we bother trying to make TV pictures more realistic, when
the artistes (my dear!) then counter it all?

Couple that philosophy with the idiots that like to chuck away every other
field in the name of 'art', and we're buggered ?



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

In message , Mark Carver
writes
pete wrote:

From the promist website:
" ...creates a special "atmosphere" by softening excess sharpness and
contrast. "
So I would expect we can see more of this as HD gains penetration.
Why do we bother trying to make TV pictures more realistic, when the
artistes (my dear!) then counter it all?

Couple that philosophy with the idiots that like to chuck away every
other field in the name of 'art', and we're buggered ?

These days you don't even need to throw it away - all you need to do is
shoot at 25p
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

Mark Carver wrote:
pete wrote:

From the promist website:
" ...creates a special "atmosphere" by softening excess sharpness
and contrast. " So I would expect we can see more of this as HD
gains penetration. Why do we bother trying to make TV pictures more
realistic, when
the artistes (my dear!) then counter it all?

Couple that philosophy with the idiots that like to chuck away every
other field in the name of 'art', and we're buggered ?


Even with analogue, it didn't appear to me that the majority of output
really stretched 625 PAL to show what it was really capable of, also I've
often wondered why it is that some of the live links shown during a news
broadcast can sometimes be of a noticeably superior picture quality to the
ones from the news studio itself.

"Peter Watson" wrote in message
...
On 02/10/2009 21:21, Ivan wrote:
I tuned in to the Jonathan Ross interview with Barbara Streisand on BBC
one Freesat this evening and noticed that the picture quality was
unusually soft and lacking in the usual detail for this program,
switched over to HD on chan 108 and even in HD I don't think it looked
near as good as the Ross show usually looks, even in standard
definition, I have my own thoughts on this, however any clues anyone?

Lee Soft or Promist by the look of it

Electronic Vaseline


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%