Videokarma.org

Go Back   Videokarma.org TV - Video - Vintage Television & Radio Forums > Television Broadcast Theory

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:48 PM
Electronic M's Avatar
Electronic M Electronic M is offline
M is for Memory
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pewaukee/Delafield Wi
Posts: 8,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colly0410 View Post
Just a thought. Is there anything like Freesat or Free-cable in USA? Or do you always have to pay a subscription? When I was in USA (Miami) 20'odd years ago I had a rabbit ears antenna on top of the TV, almost perfect pictures (apart from a bit of ghosting) on the VHF channels, all UHF ones were fuzzy..
IIRC there is free to air satellite in north America, but the programming is mostly garbage that is below OTA programming quality (IIRC it's used mostly for remote broadcast links between stations and remote program trucks/facilities)....Almost no one knows it exists and even fewer actually watch it.
__________________
Tom C.

What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4

Reading between the scan lines since the mid 2000's.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-05-2016, 01:53 PM
centralradio centralradio is online now
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penthode View Post
Yes, I agree. That is why terrestrial broadcast is still successful in Europe and Asia and is such a mess in the US and Canada. The North American governments should listen more to the public interests rather than selected business groups.
I agree 100 percent.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-05-2016, 02:15 PM
centralradio centralradio is online now
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 963
I probably mentioned before.Don't forget the $5 dollar broadcast TV fees the cable company tacks on our monthly bills.

Maybe the broadcasters can soak their advert clients for more cash instead of its viewers.I agree with Penthode on adverts .We get soaked with the 5 minute adverts in the programs every 8 minutes.The programs are getting shorter with more ads inserted in them.The killer is that we get stuck paying them $5 bucks a month on top of it.

Back to the original topic of producers.

With the crap that airs today here.There is not much producing going on with these reality shows.Just set up the cameras and let them roll.Cheaply made productions with some those shows will make the local access cable channel productions look like top pro productions.

Better off to watch amateurs on Youtube then what is produced on the networks.The sitcoms suck and not funny.The classic game shows like Jeopardy,the Wheel and The Price is Right are still good to watch.Drama shows like the CSI collection and other cop type drama shows are good but getting cropped for more ads..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-05-2016, 04:08 PM
Chip Chester Chip Chester is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 493
Without addressing subjective quality issues, the average reality TV show is a bear to produce. Instead of having a written, presumably efficient plan that cast and crew follows, reality TV relies on multi-camera coverage to the extreme. This over-shooting results in tons of footage that has to be screened and logged (by producers -- the non-financial, non-decisionmaking kind ) in order to be edited together to produce the desired story line. (The story line is not left to chance as much as would be expected.) Reality show low-level producers are subject to extremely long hours with very low average pay, as there is always someone standing by in the wings to take their place as a "producer on a national network TV show". I would guess that reality shows shoot and log at least four times as much footage as a scripted multi-camera show does.

Chip
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-05-2016, 04:34 PM
centralradio centralradio is online now
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Chester View Post
Without addressing subjective quality issues, the average reality TV show is a bear to produce. Instead of having a written, presumably efficient plan that cast and crew follows, reality TV relies on multi-camera coverage to the extreme. This over-shooting results in tons of footage that has to be screened and logged (by producers -- the non-financial, non-decisionmaking kind ) in order to be edited together to produce the desired story line. (The story line is not left to chance as much as would be expected.) Reality show low-level producers are subject to extremely long hours with very low average pay, as there is always someone standing by in the wings to take their place as a "producer on a national network TV show". I would guess that reality shows shoot and log at least four times as much footage as a scripted multi-camera show does.

Chip
Thanks Chip for the info and explaining it .Yes .OK Low paid producers.I'm surprise with the unions they can get away with it. I figure they had to sort of hours of video in order to edit the show together.Theres room for error for wrong scene call ups.I wonder how many hours of the Kardashian's over shoots on the cutting room floor.

Yes with script shows.Everything is organized with the script and the storyboard.The cast should cruise through it with a couple of takes.
Reply With Quote
Audiokarma
  #51  
Old 03-05-2016, 04:43 PM
centralradio centralradio is online now
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 963
Speaking of UK TV shows.I enjoy these shows.Post other when I think of them.


Keeping Up Appearances (S15 E5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFBuA4aCibU

As Time Goes By Season 7 E03 The New Neighbors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0zrEbYDzw

These are will produced shows and very funny.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-07-2016, 08:32 AM
NewVista's Avatar
NewVista NewVista is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Milw, WI
Posts: 639
BBC Licence used to be 10/- ($1) a year!
CPB (usa) gets 100X the Fed money it got in the late-60s!
Why are Bankrupt countries throwing money at Broadcasting?
(Bankrupt: borrowing just to pay the interest on Debt)
(which both countries are doing)
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-07-2016, 11:55 AM
centralradio centralradio is online now
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 963
CPB more likely is getting less Fed dollars today then years ago.I have notice PBS is having more pledge drives in the resent years.

Running programs on TV is not cheap after everybody gets their cut with the royalties it makes.I have no idea how much does PBS have to pay for a classic movie or series like Sesame Street ,Nova and other popular shows.The inside shows are probably cheaper but the outside shows are more likely expensive.


Maybe somebody here in the biz can shed some light on it.Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-07-2016, 09:57 PM
NewVista's Avatar
NewVista NewVista is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Milw, WI
Posts: 639
We need to put a Scotsman in charge - But not John Reith!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-08-2016, 02:13 AM
ppppenguin's Avatar
ppppenguin ppppenguin is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 234
10/- was $2 in 1925. For many years it was $4 to the pound.

This website is invaluable for working with historic amounts of money in both the US and the UK. Their methods are well researched and use the best available data sets. Some comparisons are available back to the 13th century!
https://www.measuringworth.com

Putting in 10/- (ten shillings = 50 pence in current usage) and getting today's value gives a set of numbers from £25 to over £200 depending on which comparison method you use. If you look at the income comparison, a good measure of affordability, it's £143, close to the present day licence fee. You get rather more for your money from the BBC now than then.
__________________
Jeffrey Borinsky www.borinsky.co.uk
Reply With Quote
Audiokarma
  #56  
Old 03-08-2016, 07:27 AM
NewVista's Avatar
NewVista NewVista is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Milw, WI
Posts: 639
The Pound was way more 'Sound' than I thought;
4:1 would have given England very strong purchasing power for imports.
Shows you how decimated the US Dollar has been by a century of [Gov-engineered] inflation!
The worst is yet to come after they discover their latest desperate maneuver -
- GDP-expansion-by-immigration - fails to deliver growth & deceive creditors.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©Copyright 2012 VideoKarma.org, All rights reserved.