On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:01:00 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What they don't seem to have been told is broadcasting was always
technology lead - with those using it grabbing new technology with
enthusiasm. (Of course that's not to say they won't try and lever a pay
rise out of it). Not like, say, the print where some wanted things never
to change.

I guess the big difference is that there weren't thousands of jobs at
risk from changes in technology. No broadcast equivalent of hot-metal
compositors who'd no longer be needed.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:01:00 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What they don't seem to have been told is broadcasting was always
technology lead - with those using it grabbing new technology with
enthusiasm. (Of course that's not to say they won't try and lever a
pay rise out of it). Not like, say, the print where some wanted things
never to change.

I guess the big difference is that there weren't thousands of jobs at
risk from changes in technology. No broadcast equivalent of hot-metal
compositors who'd no longer be needed.

There *was* something fairly similar. When film was replaced by videotape
in news and documentaries, etc. The existing film people re-trained to the
new technology - which was just as different as going from hot metal to
computer. And, of course, some jobs disappeared. Film processing, etc. The
trick is to try and absorb those displaced into alternative skills.

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

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

On 25/01/2014 00:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 24/01/2014 19:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
It's all similar to saying 'my HD camcorder takes perfect pictures on
the beach and cost a hundred quid. Why does a broadcast one need to
cost 20 grand?'

Why does it need to cost £20k?

You can get a 4k one for that sort of money these days.

Lenses. They haven't been effected much by electronics tumbling in
price.


They aren't exactly built to the optical limits and good zooms don't
cost anywhere near £20k.

You think one lens is enough for TV production?


For a lot of programs, yes (its easy to get a 10-250 mm zoom that
exceeds HD resolution for less than £1k and some fast ones for £3k).

We really don't need all the stupid effects and gimmicks used to
convince some viewers that there is actually content to the program.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:01:00 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What they don't seem to have been told is broadcasting was always
technology lead - with those using it grabbing new technology with
enthusiasm. (Of course that's not to say they won't try and lever a
pay rise out of it). Not like, say, the print where some wanted things
never to change.

I guess the big difference is that there weren't thousands of jobs at
risk from changes in technology. No broadcast equivalent of hot-metal
compositors who'd no longer be needed.

There *was* something fairly similar. When film was replaced by videotape
in news and documentaries, etc. The existing film people re-trained to the
new technology - which was just as different as going from hot metal to
computer. And, of course, some jobs disappeared. Film processing, etc. The
trick is to try and absorb those displaced into alternative skills.


Bit like the railways when the firemen's job was made redundant owing to
the coming of Diesel so the "second man" position was invented...

--
Tony Sayer

In article om,
dennis@home scribeth thus
On 25/01/2014 00:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 24/01/2014 19:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
It's all similar to saying 'my HD camcorder takes perfect pictures on
the beach and cost a hundred quid. Why does a broadcast one need to
cost 20 grand?'

Why does it need to cost £20k?

You can get a 4k one for that sort of money these days.

Lenses. They haven't been effected much by electronics tumbling in
price.


They aren't exactly built to the optical limits and good zooms don't
cost anywhere near £20k.

You think one lens is enough for TV production?


For a lot of programs, yes (its easy to get a 10-250 mm zoom that
exceeds HD resolution for less than £1k and some fast ones for £3k).

Wonder why TV crews and studios spend more on them?..


We really don't need all the stupid effects and gimmicks used to
convince some viewers that there is actually content to the program.

Now on that I'd agree!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:27:57 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

They aren't exactly built to the optical limits and good zooms
don't
cost anywhere near £20k.

You think one lens is enough for TV production?

For a lot of programs, yes (its easy to get a 10-250 mm zoom that
exceeds HD resolution for less than £1k and some fast ones for £3k).

"HD resolution" is pretty crap at under 2M pixels ... but besides
that will your £1k lens:

Track properly, ie remain in focus from fully zoomed in to fully
zoomed out.
Not zoom when adjusting focus.
Not vignette at the wide end of the zoom.

We really don't need all the stupid effects and gimmicks used to
convince some viewers that there is actually content to the program.

Agreed, but what have they got to do with the lens? Nearly all are
added in post production or by a ****ed camera operator.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 25/01/2014 18:51, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:27:57 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

They aren't exactly built to the optical limits and good zooms
don't
cost anywhere near £20k.

You think one lens is enough for TV production?

For a lot of programs, yes (its easy to get a 10-250 mm zoom that
exceeds HD resolution for less than £1k and some fast ones for £3k).

"HD resolution" is pretty crap at under 2M pixels

Yes welol that is sort of the point, you could almost use the bottom of
a jam jar.

... but besides
that will your £1k lens:

Track properly, ie remain in focus from fully zoomed in to fully
zoomed out.
Not zoom when adjusting focus.
Not vignette at the wide end of the zoom.

Mine don't have a problem.
Three Olympus zooms.
And the sensor has 5x the resolution and is probably bigger making the
design more critical.

They didn't cost £1k for all three.

I bet the new full frame Sony camera has lenses which will easily work
well to the 24M sensor limit.


We really don't need all the stupid effects and gimmicks used to
convince some viewers that there is actually content to the program.

Agreed, but what have they got to do with the lens? Nearly all are
added in post production or by a ****ed camera operator.


So all those weird zooms, focus pulls and revolving around some
arbitrary point are not done using the camera?

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:17:02 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

We really don't need all the stupid effects and gimmicks used to
convince some viewers that there is actually content to the
program.

Agreed, but what have they got to do with the lens? Nearly all are
added in post production or by a ****ed camera operator.

So all those weird zooms, focus pulls and revolving around some
arbitrary point are not done using the camera?

Nothing to do with the technical quality of the lens, as I said
"****ed camera operator".

I sometimes wonder if any of the production types ever realised the
true meaning behind the answer "Technically it was fine" when asked
"Was that OK?"

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 26/01/2014 11:50, Dave Liquorice wrote:

I sometimes wonder if any of the production types ever realised the
true meaning behind the answer "Technically it was fine" when asked
"Was that OK?"

Nice!

--
Tciao for Now!

John.