In article ,
Tim S writes:
coughed up some electrons that declared:


5. the 0.1% energy saving that switching to cfls will give us will
make a real difference

A 0.1% energy saving will save 0.1% of energy. The advantage of
changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever

With the greatest of respect...

********!

and so obviously it is a good thing to do.

It would be, assuming the replacement is acceptable.

The only decent CFL I have used recently is:

http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/Light-Bul...5W-BC-827-Bell

And 20% of my order for 10 were flickering wildly. Replaced for free, but if
and significant percentage are DOA then that counts against the savings in
pollution.

I'll see how long they last, but they are the first ones I've used where the
light is actually anywhere near the brightness alluded to on the box. Might
as well watch a neon bulb as use Tesco's x-for-a-pound jobbies (I tried
them, last week).

You need a 23W CFL (25W with outer bulb) to get same light output
as a regular pearl or clear 100W filament lamp. Ignore any contrary
claims on the carton (which are comparisons with softone lamps).

These CFL's are pretty impossible to find in retail shops at the
moment, so it's quite a struggle to find 100W replacement lamps.
Costco had some Feit 23W ones many months back and I bought 16
(well, just 4 initially). I have 8 of them in service, and I'm
impressed with them. So far, no failures, and no perceptable drop
in light output. 4 are running in enclosed (almost sealed) fittings
where the lamps get very hot (2 of them cap-up), but they still work
fine. One has been running almost 24x7 since May, and is still fine.
The bubble pack does claim 100W equivalence (correctly in this case),
but also claims same physical size as 100W bulb, which is clearly
garbage (I modified one fitting to make them fit in place of 100W bulb).
Sadly, Costco ran out of the BC ones, and have only had ES ones in
stock for the last couple of months. I hope they get the BC ones back
in. There's also a lower power version (can't remember exactly what
rating) in BC and ES.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel coughed up some electrons that declared:

You need a 23W CFL (25W with outer bulb) to get same light output
as a regular pearl or clear 100W filament lamp. Ignore any contrary
claims on the carton (which are comparisons with softone lamps).

Agreed - and with a decent phosphor.

These CFL's are pretty impossible to find in retail shops at the
moment, so it's quite a struggle to find 100W replacement lamps.
Costco had some Feit 23W ones many months back and I bought 16
(well, just 4 initially). I have 8 of them in service, and I'm
impressed with them. So far, no failures, and no perceptable drop
in light output. 4 are running in enclosed (almost sealed) fittings
where the lamps get very hot (2 of them cap-up), but they still work
fine. One has been running almost 24x7 since May, and is still fine.
The bubble pack does claim 100W equivalence (correctly in this case),
but also claims same physical size as 100W bulb, which is clearly
garbage (I modified one fitting to make them fit in place of 100W bulb).
Sadly, Costco ran out of the BC ones, and have only had ES ones in
stock for the last couple of months. I hope they get the BC ones back
in. There's also a lower power version (can't remember exactly what
rating) in BC and ES.


I got a couple of Philips CFLs this weekend, thinking they'd be better than
Tesco's crap, 15W was the biggest on sale. Still crap - utterly utterly
yellow. More like the light from a flaming torch than a light bulb.

http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/Light-Bul...-100W-BC-Clear

Still listing 150w and 200W GLS. This is what I suspected. High Street shops
may stop selling them, but they'll still be available from Internet
suppliers until such a time as no-on in the world, or at least Europe
(that's Europe, not just the EU) wants them anymore. Which probably means
that BC will die out eventually, but I can't see it being impossible to buy
ES for a long time.

Anyway, looks like I'll have to go back to lampspecs for some more. I'll try
the 30W CFLs next - and buy a job lot of GLS whilst I'm about it.

Cheers

Tim

wrote:
To justify mandating widespread use of cfls one would need to
establish all the following:

It is only necessary to establish that there is a risk that severe
effects will ensue in order for it to be worth avoiding. The reason
for this is that the effects are likely to be so severe as to make any
costs incurred avoiding them to pale in comparison,

1. climate is changing
2. the change is caused by CO2 emission
3. this change will be seriously destructive

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very
well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of
the effects are very well understood.

4. The only way to reduce CO2 emission is to reduce energy use

No, any way of reducing CO2 will reduce global warming and all
avenues including energy reduction should be pursued,

5. the 0.1% energy saving that switching to cfls will give us will
make a real difference

A 0.1% energy saving will save 0.1% of energy. The advantage of
changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever and so
obviously it is a good thing to do.

Yet the only one that has been established with any serious degree of
solidity is point 1. 2,3 and 5 are just speculation, and 4 is flat out
wrong. The climate argument for CFL mandation is simply not valid.

Codswallop.

David


I offered you a logical argument, a sequence of claims that would need
to be true for mandating cfls to make any sense. Its not opinion on
each point, its simply laying out the sequence of logic behind the
debate. Then I separately offered an opinionated summary of the
position so far.

Unfortunately rather than responding to the basic clear chain of logic
this whole topic is based on, you simply parroted a popular political
viewpoint, avoiding any logical basis for your claims. With your
standpoint there is no argument to be had, because quite simply you're
not presenting something that's logical.


NT

In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?

You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?

You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need to see
a picture.

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?

You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Why? A small and very rapidly diminishing number of people
watch on CRTs at home. The main manufacturers have ceased
production of them anyway (and some tube manufacturers have
gone bust due to the faster than expected cease in demand
for them).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:52:18 UTC, wrote:

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very
well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of
the effects are very well understood.

Aha. Proof by assertion.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need to
see a picture.

Thanks for displaying your lack of knowledge about this too.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Why? A small and very rapidly diminishing number of people
watch on CRTs at home. The main manufacturers have ceased
production of them anyway (and some tube manufacturers have
gone bust due to the faster than expected cease in demand
for them).

And that is a very real problem. Although I believe some pro sizes are
being re-manufactured. There's a big price premium on these things for pro
use - so it can be worthwhile. For example a pro 12" CRT monitor for field
use costs over 2000 quid.

One of the major problems is setting the black levels correctly on the fly
- and LCDs are useless for this.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:52:18 -0800, mangled_us wrote:


1. climate is changing
2. the change is caused by CO2 emission 3. this change will be
seriously destructive

All of these are very well established.

Untrue.

I assume the remainder of your posting is equally invalid, and therefore
not worth reading.

Oh the irony!

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:52:18 UTC, wrote:

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very
well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of
the effects are very well understood.

Aha. Proof by assertion.


As opposed to proof by assertion I suppose

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?

You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need to see
a picture.


And no doubt Dennis is a broadcast engineer;?...
--
Tony Sayer

..

In article
..com, scribeth thus
You must have had a pretty awful CRT monitor on your computer if an LCD
was an improvement.

That's utter nonsense. I've worked as a software engineer since 1982
and have had several dozens of CRT monitors from as many different
manufaturers.. *All* the LCD monitors I've had would have beaten
*any* of the CRT monitors I've ever had. If you are going to tell me
that the top end CRTscan outperform middle ranking LCDs than maybe
they can but so what ? How many people are given top end CRT displays
with their £500 desktop machine ?

If I was asked on the phone by a future employer whether I wanted an
LCD or CRT monitor without having the chance to spec it myself I would
choose the LCD in a heartbeat. Same goes if I was allowed to choose
it on a fixed budget.

Last CRT monitor I bought cost £200 about 10 years ago. It's 15 "
displays 1024x768 at best and 76 Hz (IIRC). My most recent LCD
display cost me £277 last year, it's a 26" diagonal, displays
1920x1200 at 60 Hz and blows away any CRT below £300.

I don't know what planet you're from Dave but you sure ain't from
rould here.

David

LCD's are fine for computer displays but CRT's, good ones, still have
the edge over anything .else for TV pix..
--
Tony Sayer

..

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.
well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?
You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Why? A small and very rapidly diminishing number of people
watch on CRTs at home. The main manufacturers have ceased
production of them anyway (and some tube manufacturers have
gone bust due to the faster than expected cease in demand
for them).

I am sure an expensive and extremely well set up CRT can beat an average
production LCD, but so what? at the 150 quid a monitor level LCD wins
hands down on every count.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:43:37 +0000, tony sayer wrote:
LCD's are fine for computer displays but CRT's, good ones, still have
the edge over anything .else for TV pix..

LCD displays give me a headache - something I've never had from a *good*,
large CRT monitor*. I'm not sure if it's down to flicker, brightness, or
some artifact related to LCDs being sharper than a CRT (possibly
particularly if motion's involved), but I just can't work for as long at
an LCD as I can a CRT.

I've never tried watching an LCD TV for any length of time, so I don't
know if I'd find them similarly ittitating.

* "good" in the sense that there's an awful lot of junk out there at the
lower end of the market. 21" and, to a lesser extent, 19" CRTs seemed to
be of consistently beter quality than their smaller siblings.

wrote:
To justify mandating widespread use of cfls one would need to
establish all the following:

It is only necessary to establish that there is a risk that severe
effects will ensue in order for it to be worth avoiding. The reason
for this is that the effects are likely to be so severe as to make any
costs incurred avoiding them to pale in comparison,

1. climate is changing

True

2. the change is caused by CO2 emission

CO2 is involved - to state it as the only and sole cause would seem a
little rash.

3. this change will be seriously destructive

Possibly true, but what is not established is whether the costs of
attempting to prevent such change are not going to be greater and more
destructive than attempting to adapt to it should it occur.

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very

Only if you swallow the party line...

well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of

The new PC lingo is "climate change" - global warming seems to have
stopped.

the effects are very well understood.

The effects are not at all well understood.

4. The only way to reduce CO2 emission is to reduce energy use

No, any way of reducing CO2 will reduce global warming and all
avenues including energy reduction should be pursued,

Doing nothing (looking at the big picture) also currently seems to be
preventing global warming.

5. the 0.1% energy saving that switching to cfls will give us will
make a real difference

A 0.1% energy saving will save 0.1% of energy. The advantage of

Will it? That seems unlikely since the cost of swapping to the new
technology is not zero. Every lamp fitting, or dimmer switch that needs
to be replaced erodes the energy saving.

changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever and so
obviously it is a good thing to do.

There are a multitude of downsides - frequently discussed.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

On a slightly different subject, I was amazed at the work done
to recover one of the lost Dad's Army episodes. The original
colour videotape had been overwritten, but a B&W 16mm film
version was found that had been made for sale to a foriegn
broadcasting company. (Not sure if it was just a preview or
if they only bought a B&W version, but there were no colour
broadcasts at that time, even though Dad's army was always
videotaped in colour.) The B&W film had been created in a unit
which, crudely put, simply filmed a B&W monitor. It turned out
that the B&W monitor was receiving a colour signal, which was
very unusal as the chroma signal was normally stripped out
from B&W to prevent some minor interference it can cause on
the B&W screen. Anyway, by digitising each frame and carefully
examining the chroma interference patterns by computer
(imperceptable by eye), it was possible to restore the
original colour to the B&W film.

This episode was broadcast in colour for the first time some
weeks back, and looked just like a normal colour programme.

Clever stuff indeed. I suppose the requirement that the colour signal
was designed in such a way as to be backward compatible only extended so
far as to not be noticeably visibly incompatible. The eye being happy to
gloss over a tiny interference in the fine detail of the picture that
was in fact the chroma signal.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

On a slightly different subject, I was amazed at the work done
to recover one of the lost Dad's Army episodes. The original
colour videotape had been overwritten, but a B&W 16mm film
version was found that had been made for sale to a foriegn
broadcasting company. (Not sure if it was just a preview or
if they only bought a B&W version, but there were no colour
broadcasts at that time, even though Dad's army was always
videotaped in colour.) The B&W film had been created in a unit
which, crudely put, simply filmed a B&W monitor. It turned out
that the B&W monitor was receiving a colour signal, which was
very unusal as the chroma signal was normally stripped out
from B&W to prevent some minor interference it can cause on
the B&W screen. Anyway, by digitising each frame and carefully
examining the chroma interference patterns by computer
(imperceptable by eye), it was possible to restore the
original colour to the B&W film.

This episode was broadcast in colour for the first time some
weeks back, and looked just like a normal colour programme.

Clever stuff indeed. I suppose the requirement that the colour signal
was designed in such a way as to be backward compatible only extended so
far as to not be noticeably visibly incompatible. The eye being happy to
gloss over a tiny interference in the fine detail of the picture that
was in fact the chroma signal.

In fact:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CjK-b4x9ZmQ


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?

You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need to
see
a picture.


And no doubt Dennis is a broadcast engineer;?...

No, its been five years since I worked with the BBC technology division.


What in IT?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.
well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?
You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Why? A small and very rapidly diminishing number of people
watch on CRTs at home. The main manufacturers have ceased
production of them anyway (and some tube manufacturers have
gone bust due to the faster than expected cease in demand
for them).

I am sure an expensive and extremely well set up CRT can beat an average
production LCD, but so what? at the 150 quid a monitor level LCD wins
hands down on every count.


They are bemoaning the availability of grade one monitors for serious
broadcast setting up etc.

And as you say for PC monitor use LCD's are indeed very good but the
needs of pro broadcast are somewhat different..
--
Tony Sayer

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
wrote:
To justify mandating widespread use of cfls one would need to
establish all the following:

It is only necessary to establish that there is a risk that severe
effects will ensue in order for it to be worth avoiding. The reason
for this is that the effects are likely to be so severe as to make any
costs incurred avoiding them to pale in comparison,

1. climate is changing

True

2. the change is caused by CO2 emission

CO2 is involved - to state it as the only and sole cause would seem a
little rash.

3. this change will be seriously destructive

Possibly true, but what is not established is whether the costs of
attempting to prevent such change are not going to be greater and more
destructive than attempting to adapt to it should it occur.

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very

Only if you swallow the party line...

well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of

The new PC lingo is "climate change" - global warming seems to have
stopped.

What is your basis for saying that GW has 'stopped'?

In article ,
"OG" writes:

What is your basis for saying that GW has 'stopped'?


There hasn't been any for 10 years now, so they had
to stop calling it Global Warming and invent a new name.
Climate change is a good name, because the climate always
has and always will change, so you've always got something
you can worry about...

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
What in IT?..

I was designing and prototyping distribution systems at the time
Things like taking multiplexs apart into sdi and recoding and
re-multiplexing them so they could be sent down broadband.
There was a lot of quality testing done using very sophisticated equipment,
not much by looking at the monitors.
I have never been in IT as such, I have designed and prototyped computer
hardware, software, systems and networks (the sort BT runs or will run
soon). The IT I have done is to get things done when the IT dept said they
couldn't do it, like installing ethernet in the days prior to TCP/IP (which
those of you that know about ethernet will understand).

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
What in IT?..

I was designing and prototyping distribution systems at the time
Things like taking multiplexs apart into sdi and recoding and
re-multiplexing them so they could be sent down broadband.
There was a lot of quality testing done using very sophisticated equipment,
not much by looking at the monitors.
I have never been in IT as such, I have designed and prototyped computer
hardware, software, systems and networks (the sort BT runs or will run
soon). The IT I have done is to get things done when the IT dept said they
couldn't do it, like installing ethernet in the days prior to TCP/IP (which
those of you that know about ethernet will understand).


So you've never had to line up a camera chain then?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , OG
scribeth thus

"John Rumm" wrote in message
net...
wrote:
To justify mandating widespread use of cfls one would need to
establish all the following:

It is only necessary to establish that there is a risk that severe
effects will ensue in order for it to be worth avoiding. The reason
for this is that the effects are likely to be so severe as to make any
costs incurred avoiding them to pale in comparison,

1. climate is changing

True

2. the change is caused by CO2 emission

CO2 is involved - to state it as the only and sole cause would seem a
little rash.

3. this change will be seriously destructive

Possibly true, but what is not established is whether the costs of
attempting to prevent such change are not going to be greater and more
destructive than attempting to adapt to it should it occur.

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very

Only if you swallow the party line...

well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of

The new PC lingo is "climate change" - global warming seems to have
stopped.

What is your basis for saying that GW has 'stopped'?



Thats very simple!..

People like my missus.. And the man on the Clapham bendybus.. don't seem
to understand it and -think- the weather should be getting warmer.

And as its been brass monkeys weather lately .. think its now stopped,
the global warming that is;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"OG" writes:

What is your basis for saying that GW has 'stopped'?



There hasn't been any for 10 years now, so they had
to stop calling it Global Warming and invent a new name.
Climate change is a good name, because the climate always
has and always will change, so you've always got something
you can worry about...


Ah, the "because I say so" explanation from Mr Gabriel there.

Anyhow, back to Mr Rumm, what is your basis for saying it? Please don't
say "Mr Gabriel says so".

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


So you've never had to line up a camera chain then?..

They used to employ technicians to do that, then they started to use
electronics didn't they?

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only real
option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need to
see a picture.

Thanks for displaying your lack of knowledge about this too.

Are you claiming you can't?
Tell me why.
You aren't suggesting people still use analogue?

I'm fascinated by this. I know *nothing* about this kind of setup. If
I understand correctly, you are trying to set up the response curves for
the camera correctly - so half bright *is* half bright, and so on.
Surely this isn't done by relying on the Mk1 eyeball?

Andy

dennis@home wrote:

There is no such thing as inconsequential in chaotic systems like the
climate.

In a chaotic system many of the inputs have no real effect at all.

Our problem is we don't know which inputs *will* have real effect.
We're lacking controls for this experiment.

Andy

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:
You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone
who has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat
CRTs and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat
those for high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight
problem ?

You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV
cameras, then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still
the only real option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need
to see a picture.


And no doubt Dennis is a broadcast engineer;?...

No, its been five years since I worked with the BBC technology division.

What was that - designing new paper clips? You certainly never visited a
racks area - or understood what it did.

--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
One of the major problems is setting the black levels correctly on the
fly - and LCDs are useless for this.

but that's what people are watching on, so why does it matter?
Surely you should be making it look right on LCD's?

But which LCD? No two are the same. And what about those who use plasmas?
DLP? OLED when it arrives?

Your argument is a common one with accountants in broadcasting - why use a
20,000 quid camera with a 20,000 quid lens when most viewers are perfectly
happy with the results from their camcorder? Etc.


On a slightly different subject, I was amazed at the work done
to recover one of the lost Dad's Army episodes. The original
colour videotape had been overwritten, but a B&W 16mm film
version was found that had been made for sale to a foriegn
broadcasting company. (Not sure if it was just a preview or
if they only bought a B&W version, but there were no colour
broadcasts at that time, even though Dad's army was always
videotaped in colour.) The B&W film had been created in a unit
which, crudely put, simply filmed a B&W monitor. It turned out
that the B&W monitor was receiving a colour signal, which was
very unusal as the chroma signal was normally stripped out
from B&W to prevent some minor interference it can cause on
the B&W screen. Anyway, by digitising each frame and carefully
examining the chroma interference patterns by computer
(imperceptable by eye), it was possible to restore the
original colour to the B&W film.

Most BBC programmes like this were telerecorded as a backup to either 16
or 35mm B&W film. And as you say the system is essentially a film camera
looking at a monitor - albeit a rather special one. And they simply didn't
bother retrospectively fitting subcarrier traps to these rather
obsolescent machines as most wouldn't notice the chroma dots at home.

This episode was broadcast in colour for the first time some
weeks back, and looked just like a normal colour programme.

It was really quite impressive. Although I'm told a lot of work went into
it, grading the results, etc.

Thames TV - before it folded as an ITV contractor - was working on an
archiving system for colour progs by recording digitally to 16mm B&W film
- and the early results were most impressive. Film if stored correctly has
a much longer life than pretty well any alternative.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


So you've never had to line up a camera chain then?..

They used to employ technicians to do that, then they started to use
electronics didn't they?

There are more 'tweaks' on a modern camera than there were on, say, an EMI
2001. Different, of course, since registration is no longer an issue. And
stability is very much better. But they still required skilled setting up.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only
real
option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need to
see a picture.

Thanks for displaying your lack of knowledge about this too.

Are you claiming you can't?
Tell me why.
You aren't suggesting people still use analogue?

I'm fascinated by this. I know *nothing* about this kind of setup. If I
understand correctly, you are trying to set up the response curves for the
camera correctly - so half bright *is* half bright, and so on. Surely this
isn't done by relying on the Mk1 eyeball?

It would appear some people think it is.
And that they need a CRT to do it.

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
I'm fascinated by this. I know *nothing* about this kind of setup. If
I understand correctly, you are trying to set up the response curves for
the camera correctly - so half bright *is* half bright, and so on.
Surely this isn't done by relying on the Mk1 eyeball?

You might as well say there's no need to control audio levels - just stick
up a mic and send it to line.

You tend to start off with a standard camera line up but then adjust it
for the actual light/lighting conditions. Of course if you had all the
time in the world you could light things to a fixed standard - or only
shoot in mid summer midday sunlight - but life ain't like that.

--
*The beatings will continue until morale improves *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote:

and a returning one with a smashed tube got you 50p - anyone supplying
CFLs having to participate in the deposit scheme.

But surely in an environment where Dave's sandwich wrapper is hazardous
trade waste, getting shop assistants to handle broken glass coated with
toxic chemicals ain't gonna fly?

Pete

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"OG" writes:
What is your basis for saying that GW has 'stopped'?


There hasn't been any for 10 years now, so they had
to stop calling it Global Warming and invent a new name.
Climate change is a good name, because the climate always
has and always will change, so you've always got something
you can worry about...

Tell that to the Inuit..and just WAIT till a worldwide recession cuts
atmospheric pollution down. And the next sunpsot cycle kicks in.

Since Katrina weve been in a NAO downside as well.

wrote:
On 29 Dec 2008 15:33:19 GMT, Huge wrote:
On 2008-12-29, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Your friend needs to be planning their way to remove filament lamps
from their home.

Or stocking up on a reasonable supply.

Which is what is going to happen now that a source gil-tec.co.uk...has
been found .

I've just bought a modest stock from
http://www.lightbulbs2u.com/product_details_14.htm, who are cheaper.

Pete

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:28:47 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What was that - designing new paper clips? You certainly never visited a
racks area - or understood what it did.

Don't sweat it Dave. "dennis" is a died in the wool engineer. Probably
from the same class that produced the LS5/9. Marvelous spec, measured
beautifully, sounded crap. As with most things in the real world the
measurements are OK up to a point but they are not the be all and end all.

As for LCD v CRT. I have LCD computer monitors they are much better than
any CRT computer monitor I have had. My TV is a couple of years old £400
CRT with Dolby Surround it is much better than any but the most expensive
LCD TV's I've seen.

Oh and the other problem with LCD TV's is the delay in the pictures
between the input connector and the crystals switching. And we aren't
talking a couple of mS but 2 or 3 frames. Anyone specing a broadcast sound
area that has any knowledge insists that at least one monitor is CRT for
sync checking.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You'll have to add in all those who's job it is to set up TV cameras,
then, for the pictures you watch at home. CRTs are still the only
real
option for this.

Rubbish, you could set them up using the histograms without any need to
see a picture.

Thanks for displaying your lack of knowledge about this too.

Are you claiming you can't?
Tell me why.
You aren't suggesting people still use analogue?

I'm fascinated by this. I know *nothing* about this kind of setup. If I
understand correctly, you are trying to set up the response curves for the
camera correctly - so half bright *is* half bright, and so on. Surely this
isn't done by relying on the Mk1 eyeball?

It would appear some people think it is.
And that they need a CRT to do it.




Obviously you haven't done it then;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


So you've never had to line up a camera chain then?..

They used to employ technicians to do that, then they started to use
electronics didn't they?


And it shows sometimes;(..
--
Tony Sayer