Re: OT - Re: Windows standalone puzzle

[Kay C Lan]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Alex Tweedly  wrote:

>  I'd see 'flash suppression' (if it could be done properly) as a similar
> attempt to allow more people to watch a particular clip.
>

Where I live they've used 'flash suppression' for longer than I can
remember. My kids have never seen or ever likely to see a stray penis
across a football pitch. The TV stations here seem to have flash
suppression down to a fine art;-) But I do seem to remember a SuperBowl not
long back that got all controversial because of a flash that wasn't
suppressed, so maybe in the States they need to upgrade their software.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: OT - Re: Windows standalone puzzle

[Curry Kenworthy]

> I'm afraid you're not getting 'truth' via broadcasts

Everything on TV is always true. Talking heads are infallible and edits 
only enhance the facts. Anything omitted was never worth knowing. Polls 
and statistics can never mislead. If you doubt this, you will develop a 
bad rash and be placed on some watch lists, and animals will run away 
from you.


Best wishes,

Curry K.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: OT - Re: Windows standalone puzzle

[Alex Tweedly]

On 22/08/2013 01:03, Roger Eller wrote:

If they can edit what we "see" in a journalist presentation of the facts,
have they not in a way, erased some of the truth?

Yes in some strict sense. But any video shoot (or still photo) does that 
anyway - the eye can handle very wide variations in light intensity, but 
photo/video can't, so the cameraman attempts to capture as much of the 
important detail as she can. But 'auto light level' (or AWB, or any 
other adjustment) will vary the detail captured. Not so much 'erase the 
truth' as 'try to convey as much as the tools allow', and I'd see 'flash 
suppression' (if it could be done properly) as a similar attempt to 
allow more people to watch a particular clip.


But Tim is right - it's a cost issue rather than a technical one; and 
although a TV station might be able to do this and help promote their 
"greater community concern" for disabled folks, the affected target is 
probably too small to cost-justify it. Thirty years ago you  wouldn't 
have seen on your TV screens BSL (or ASL) signers or real-time 
subtitling - maybe this will come some day.


Thanks
-- Alex.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: OT - Re: Windows standalone puzzle

[Tim Selander]

Oh, golly. I work in broadcast (though not news.) ALL, and I mean 
ALL, news, documentaries, etc., etc. 'erase' some of the truth 
via editing, in what they decided to shoot and in what they never 
bothered to film in the first place. Taking out flashes in a news 
conference is the very LEAST of the 'erasing of truth' that goes 
on. It is all biased in one way or another. It can't be helped -- 
we're humans. Even if we try to be absolutely unbiased, we are 
riddled with culture, thought patterns, values that we cannot 
keep out of our communication. I'm afraid you're not getting 
'truth' via broadcasts -- your getting the broadcasters' (or 
advertisers?) interpretation of the truth.


OK, off the soapbox

My guess is that it is strictly a cost issue. Much cheaper just 
to verbally warn people who have issues with flashing lights. Do 
glitzy stuff like lines and graphics on a football field can 
attract millions of football fans, nicely packaged up for the 
advertisers. Worth the cost. Edit out the flashes, and gain a 
handful of viewers who suffer from certain disease? Doesn't pay


Also, taking out a random flash here and there is relatively easy 
and would not noticeably affect the picture. However, say the 
president grimaces -- every camera/flash in the place goes off, 
giving you mostly flashes for a second or two. Taking those out 
would do very noticeable 'damage' to the picture. Most viewers 
will not notice a single dropped frame. But when you start 
dropping 30 to 50% of the frames, they'll notice!


Tim Selander
Tokyo, Japan

On 8/22/13 9:03 AM, Roger Eller wrote:

If they can edit what we "see" in a journalist presentation of the facts,
have they not in a way, erased some of the truth?

~Roger
On Aug 21, 2013 7:41 PM, "Alex Tweedly"  wrote:


On 20/08/2013 16:52, Richard Gaskin wrote:


This is why I love this community:

...
Collectively, there's nothing we can't solve. :)

--
  Richard Gaskin


I've often thought that if I had *any* technical question, I could ask
this list and there would be someone who knew (or at least had a very good
idea of) the answer. So here goes ... :-)

Every night when I watch the news on TV, they say something like "Here's
(John Smith) at the news conference held this afternoon. Warning - this
report contains some flash photography".

Now I know why they give this warning - that repeated rapid flashing from
still cameras can cause problems for nystagmus, epilepsy and various other
disease sufferers.

What I don't know is why they don't just digitally edit out the flashing.
Surely this must be (relatively) easy Digital Video Processing - you detect
a non-trivial part (10% threshold??) of the frame which increases in light
level for a single frame (assuming anything between 20 and 60 fps) and then
returns to its original levels.

OK - I know almost nothing about DVP, but if they can overlay a touchdown
line on a football field, or change a Coke to Pepsi can, or all those other
marvels, surely it can't be that hard to eliminate 95% of the flashing -
and wouldn't that would be enough to reduce it below the trigger point for
most vulnerable viewers. It needn't even be done in real time - it could be
left as a warning for any live showing, and then automatically removed by
program and checked by a human editor before subsequent showings.

-- Alex.


__**_
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/**mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: OT - Re: Windows standalone puzzle

[Roger Eller]

If they can edit what we "see" in a journalist presentation of the facts,
have they not in a way, erased some of the truth?

~Roger
On Aug 21, 2013 7:41 PM, "Alex Tweedly"  wrote:

> On 20/08/2013 16:52, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> This is why I love this community:
>>
>> ...
>> Collectively, there's nothing we can't solve. :)
>>
>> --
>>  Richard Gaskin
>>
> I've often thought that if I had *any* technical question, I could ask
> this list and there would be someone who knew (or at least had a very good
> idea of) the answer. So here goes ... :-)
>
> Every night when I watch the news on TV, they say something like "Here's
> (John Smith) at the news conference held this afternoon. Warning - this
> report contains some flash photography".
>
> Now I know why they give this warning - that repeated rapid flashing from
> still cameras can cause problems for nystagmus, epilepsy and various other
> disease sufferers.
>
> What I don't know is why they don't just digitally edit out the flashing.
> Surely this must be (relatively) easy Digital Video Processing - you detect
> a non-trivial part (10% threshold??) of the frame which increases in light
> level for a single frame (assuming anything between 20 and 60 fps) and then
> returns to its original levels.
>
> OK - I know almost nothing about DVP, but if they can overlay a touchdown
> line on a football field, or change a Coke to Pepsi can, or all those other
> marvels, surely it can't be that hard to eliminate 95% of the flashing -
> and wouldn't that would be enough to reduce it below the trigger point for
> most vulnerable viewers. It needn't even be done in real time - it could be
> left as a warning for any live showing, and then automatically removed by
> program and checked by a human editor before subsequent showings.
>
> -- Alex.
>
>
> __**_
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/**mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode