Ignoring how bad Auntie's end credit squeezes are anyway, the most 
irritating point is the single frame delay and jump back in the credits when 
the circuit is switched through the caption generator. Why not just put a 
frame delay on all the time, and end up with a seamless switch? I presume 
they don't leave the feed routed through all the time in case someone 
buggars up and puts a credit squeeze over the actual program, but surely 
they could put a delay on the normal feed and switch seamlessly across to 
the evil caption generator they use?

"Mat Overton"  wrote in message 
news:9cg3k.9078$pu3.1280@newsfe05.ams2...
> Ignoring how bad Auntie's end credit squeezes are anyway, the most 
> irritating point is the single frame delay and jump back in the credits 
> when the circuit is switched through the caption generator. Why not just 
> put a frame delay on all the time, and end up with a seamless switch? I 
> presume they don't leave the feed routed through all the time in case 
> someone buggars up and puts a credit squeeze over the actual program, but 
> surely they could put a delay on the normal feed and switch seamlessly 
> across to the evil caption generator they use?
>


Seeing that flipping jump before the inevitable overly loud bable and 
saturation advertising which is in the wrong place anyway just adds insults 
to injury (to me).

"Light of Aria"  wrote in message 
news:g2k3q1$1ntd$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Mat Overton"  wrote in message 
> news:9cg3k.9078$pu3.1280@newsfe05.ams2...
>> Ignoring how bad Auntie's end credit squeezes are anyway, the most 
>> irritating point is the single frame delay and jump back in the credits 
>> when the circuit is switched through the caption generator. Why not just 
>> put a frame delay on all the time, and end up with a seamless switch? I 
>> presume they don't leave the feed routed through all the time in case 
>> someone buggars up and puts a credit squeeze over the actual program, but 
>> surely they could put a delay on the normal feed and switch seamlessly 
>> across to the evil caption generator they use?
>>
>
>
> Seeing that flipping jump before the inevitable overly loud bable and 
> saturation advertising which is in the wrong place anyway just adds 
> insults to injury (to me).
>
WHY DO THEY PUT CREDITS ON??
If not squeezed so small so you can't read them they run them that fast you 
can't read them.  So why bother with them in first place?


-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

In article <oug3k.103656$_c7.57348@newsfe16.ams2>,
   David  wrote:
> WHY DO THEY PUT CREDITS ON?? If not squeezed so small so you can't read
> them they run them that fast you can't read them.  So why bother with
> them in first place?

They cost less to make than programme material.

-- 
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <oug3k.103656$_c7.57348@newsfe16.ams2>, David wrote:
> WHY DO THEY PUT CREDITS ON??
> If not squeezed so small so you can't read them they run them that fast you 
> can't read them.  So why bother with them in first place?

Their purpose is to acknowledge the efforts of the people who have actually 
made the programme. How would you rate the importance of the people who make 
programmes against the people who subsequently vandalise them?

Rod.

"David"  wrote in message 
news:oug3k.103656$_c7.57348@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
> "Light of Aria"  wrote in message 
> news:g2k3q1$1ntd$1@energise.enta.net...
>>
>> "Mat Overton"  wrote in message 
>> news:9cg3k.9078$pu3.1280@newsfe05.ams2...
>>> Ignoring how bad Auntie's end credit squeezes are anyway, the most 
>>> irritating point is the single frame delay and jump back in the credits 
>>> when the circuit is switched through the caption generator. Why not just 
>>> put a frame delay on all the time, and end up with a seamless switch? I 
>>> presume they don't leave the feed routed through all the time in case 
>>> someone buggars up and puts a credit squeeze over the actual program, 
>>> but surely they could put a delay on the normal feed and switch 
>>> seamlessly across to the evil caption generator they use?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Seeing that flipping jump before the inevitable overly loud bable and 
>> saturation advertising which is in the wrong place anyway just adds 
>> insults to injury (to me).
>>
> WHY DO THEY PUT CREDITS ON??
> If not squeezed so small so you can't read them they run them that fast 
> you can't read them.  So why bother with them in first place?
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> David
>
> Please reply to News Group
>
>



I know I'm different from everyone else but... I need a pause to think after 
I've read something or received new "dichotomies". My brain is just not 
quick enough to watch something like Andrew Marr's History of Britain, and 
then for it to end, wham bham, and go on to minor celebs goofing around 
without a few seconds pause.

King David called it a Selah.

Apparently the great musicians and conductors who have pauses between 
segments of musical movements are also wrong.

As are the great theatrical and opera writers.

And apparently the blocks of white space between newspaper articles and 
chapters between books are also only for me.

For in TV land, no one needs pause to think or moments of contemplation, and 
no one needs to fucking concentrate,

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:VA.0000040d.03842482@removethisbit.beeb.net...
> In article <oug3k.103656$_c7.57348@newsfe16.ams2>, David wrote:
>> WHY DO THEY PUT CREDITS ON??
>> If not squeezed so small so you can't read them they run them that fast 
>> you
>> can't read them. So why bother with them in first place?
>
> Their purpose is to acknowledge the efforts of the people who have 
> actually
> made the programme. How would you rate the importance of the people who 
> make
> programmes against the people who subsequently vandalise them?
>

OK then that's good that they should be recognised, so they need to make a 
stand and get their Union say, or contracts written to stop their credit 
being made unreadable.

A strike?
Do not know details but didn't the TV writers in USA go on strike.

-- 
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

In article <Y_r3k.105579$_c7.39664@newsfe16.ams2>, David wrote:
> >> WHY DO THEY PUT CREDITS ON??
> >> If not squeezed so small so you can't read them they run them that fast 
> >> you
> >> can't read them. So why bother with them in first place?
> >
> > Their purpose is to acknowledge the efforts of the people who have 
> > actually
> > made the programme. How would you rate the importance of the people who 
> > make
> > programmes against the people who subsequently vandalise them?
> >
> 
> OK then that's good that they should be recognised, so they need to make a 
> stand and get their Union say, or contracts written to stop their credit 
> being made unreadable.
> 
> A strike?
> Do not know details but didn't the TV writers in USA go on strike.

Why does everybody think of strikes when they think of unions? You can't just 
go on strike on a whim. It's illegal, and very difficult to organise. You 
have to organise an independent ballot, which means ballot papers being sent 
to the home addresses of every union member, which means reminding everybody 
to make sure their details at the union's head office are up to date, which 
in an industry full of freelancers working away from home means a lot of them 
will never get the ballot papers. Then, if you're kucky, about thirty percent 
of them will actually bother to vote. And that's in a case where they'd be 
voting about something that directly affects them, like money or working 
conditions. Vandalism of end credits by presentation departments will have to 
be dealt with another way.

Rod.

In article <g2lbuq$t7a$1@energise.enta.net>, Light of Aria wrote:
> I know I'm different from everyone else but... I need a pause to think after 
> I've read something or received new "dichotomies". My brain is just not 
> quick enough to watch something like Andrew Marr's History of Britain, and 
> then for it to end, wham bham, and go on to minor celebs goofing around 
> without a few seconds pause.
> 
> King David called it a Selah.
> 
> Apparently the great musicians and conductors who have pauses between 
> segments of musical movements are also wrong.
> 
> As are the great theatrical and opera writers.
> 
> And apparently the blocks of white space between newspaper articles and 
> chapters between books are also only for me.
> 
> For in TV land, no one needs pause to think or moments of contemplation, and 
> no one needs to fucking concentrate,

I couldn't agree more.

Rod.

Light of Aria wrote:

> I know I'm different from everyone else but... I need a pause to think
> after I've read something or received new "dichotomies". My brain is
> just not quick enough to watch something like Andrew Marr's History of
> Britain, and then for it to end, wham bham, and go on to minor celebs
> goofing around without a few seconds pause.
> 
> King David called it a Selah.
> 
> Apparently the great musicians and conductors who have pauses between
> segments of musical movements are also wrong.
> 
> As are the great theatrical and opera writers.
> 
> And apparently the blocks of white space between newspaper articles and
> chapters between books are also only for me.
> 
> For in TV land, no one needs pause to think or moments of contemplation,
> and no one needs to fucking concentrate,

You don't understand. Telly is there for the broadcasters' benefit, not
the viewers'. The viewers are there to be held in a hypnotic trance by
an incessant barrage of images and noise, to ingest propaganda and crap
cash.

In TV land, it's essential to PREVENT thinking or contemplation. People
might think "Why am I staring at this damn box?", and that would never do.


-- 
Richard Lamont                        http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

Roderick Stewart said the following on 10/06/2008 12:38:
> In article <g2lbuq$t7a$1@energise.enta.net>, Light of Aria wrote:
>> I know I'm different from everyone else but... I need a pause to think after 
>> I've read something or received new "dichotomies". My brain is just not 
>> quick enough to watch something like Andrew Marr's History of Britain, and 
>> then for it to end, wham bham, and go on to minor celebs goofing around 
>> without a few seconds pause.
>>
>> King David called it a Selah.
>>
>> Apparently the great musicians and conductors who have pauses between 
>> segments of musical movements are also wrong.

It's a continually creeping thing as each movement (and indeed any 
solo section) used to be applauded on its own merit.  Try that now and 
you'll get lynched by the mob who are there with their own personal 
full orchestra score and not there to enjoy the music.

>> As are the great theatrical and opera writers.
>>
>> And apparently the blocks of white space between newspaper articles and 
>> chapters between books are also only for me.
>>
>> For in TV land, no one needs pause to think or moments of contemplation, and 
>> no one needs to fucking concentrate,
> 
> I couldn't agree more.

Channel 4 did a week's worth about all this including their reasoning 
for doing this in the information packed society we live in.  I did 
record the whole series but wiped it in disgust!

> Rod.

I think Charlie Brooker's Screen Wipe episode where he likened it to 
someone sitting at an outside cafe table, having just read a mighty 
tome and wanting to wallow in its greatness but then having some twat 
wearing a billboard advertising some crappy little book, and jumping 
up and down around the reader, reflected that also.

In another sketch he let the symbolic 'suited young guy' with his 
charts on whiteboard who decided that we all needed squashed credits 
off very lightly with some pushing and shoving and "Think that's 
clever do you?  Think we need this?"  What's wrong with punching 
someone like 'the suit' in the face?

Coming soon, large animated billboards to be placed in all quiet 
places of contemplation to tell us what we should know and what is 
coming up next.

There are subtler ways of dealing with it:

If every tech involved in the process (who might miss out on a job 
because their credit couldn't be read) started referring to the effect* 
as "bottom wipes", embarrassment might win the day.

The people who do this sort of thing are herd followers if they are 
anything at all. Making them appear to stand out as stupid is the 
strongest attack on them you can make, save actual physical violence.



Regards,

Simonm.

*and the instigators, but only _just_ in earshot.
-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:33:19 +0100, Richard Lamont
 wrote:

>In TV land, it's essential to PREVENT thinking or contemplation. People
>might think "Why am I staring at this damn box?", and that would never do.

Especially if they might turn off their television set and do
something less boring instead:

http://www.herecomeseverybody.org/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html

--