On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 12:10:38 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>Max Demian wrote:
>
>> Dickie mint wrote:
>>
>>> Hard drives might be sealed, but what about power supplies, wiring blocks, etc?
>>
>> I don't think that hard drives *are* sealed. I think they are vented with a
>> filter at the vent.
>
>Most are, but the helium filled drives are sealed

The ones in the early 1970s were not just sealed, they had gas bottles to
maintain the pressure in case of a leak.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:32:06 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 03/10/2021 17:54, Brian Gregory wrote:
>> On 02/10/2021 16:13, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> The BBC, C4, and C5 all have quite separate DR levels, methods and
>>> locations.
>>
>> DR ??
>>
>Disaster Recovery
Mark, why were the films shown on Channel 4 and Channel 5 without subtitles
yesterday. Aren't the subtitles part of the recording of an Hollywood film?
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 07:51:47 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 03/10/2021 22:30, Sn!pe wrote:
>
>> Back in the early '70s I worked adjacent to an ICL gas-burning* computer
>> room that had such a fire suppression system.
>>
>> * gas-burning = valve (vacuum tube) computer.
>>
>That must have been an old one. The (IBM) computer I was programming in
>1967 had core store, controlled by transistor circuits (no integrated
>circuits in those days).
>
>Mind you the ancillary machines used for handling punched cards were
>valve controlled.

The Honeywell, originally 3Cs, mini computers I programmed in 1966 also had core
store too
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 04/10/2021 10:53, Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:32:06 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/10/2021 17:54, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2021 16:13, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> The BBC, C4, and C5 all have quite separate DR levels, methods and
>>>> locations.
>>> DR ??
>>>
>> Disaster Recovery
> Mark, why were the films shown on Channel 4 and Channel 5 without subtitles
> yesterday. Aren't the subtitles part of the recording of an Hollywood film?

Possibly, though I don't think that's relevant to this. C4 have so far
(since Sat 25th Sept, and decamping to their DR facility) been unable to
broadcast any subtitles at all ? The programme files may well contain
them, but they are getting lost. I think some C5 subtitles have made it
to air. The BBC are managing to broadcast subtitles, but anecdotal
evidence suggests they are all being produced 'live on-the-fly'.

All that said some recorded programmes are only edited and subtitled
just a few hours before transmission.

Friday's Gogglebox was being played out from the edit suite in Soho on
Friday night. The giveaway there was it ran over its time slot, and the
BT Tower cut the feed at dead on 22:00:00 !   Doh !

Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Oct 2021 07:51:47 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 03/10/2021 22:30, Sn!pe wrote:
> >
> >> Back in the early '70s I worked adjacent to an ICL gas-burning*
> >> computer room that had such a fire suppression system.
> >>
> >> * gas-burning = valve (vacuum tube) computer.
> >>
> >That must have been an old one. The (IBM) computer I was programming in
> >1967 had core store, controlled by transistor circuits (no integrated
> >circuits in those days).
> >
> >Mind you the ancillary machines used for handling punched cards were
> >valve controlled.
>
> The Honeywell, originally 3Cs, mini computers I programmed in 1966 also
> had core store too

My first machines (NCR 315, discrete component diode/resistor logic)
had core store too. In 1969 we would disassemble the two-layer PCBs
the core arrays were mounted in to look for dry joints and bad pin
connections. Sometimes, they even worked again afterwards!

(Subject amended, [OT] tag added)

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:40:53 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> it doesn't take much for that Word file to be sent along with the video file.

A Word file? Are you really suggesting people type scripts into MS specific
junk like that and then shunt them around manually somehow?
And makers of broadcast kit are just supposed to be able to read such
proprietary stuff that MS chuck out?

You're not only on the wrong planet, you're in the wrong universe.

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
news:slrnsln5fp.4n04.abuse@news.pr.network...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:40:53 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> it doesn't take much for that Word file to be sent along with the video
>> file.
>
> A Word file? Are you really suggesting people type scripts into MS
> specific
> junk like that and then shunt them around manually somehow?
> And makers of broadcast kit are just supposed to be able to read such
> proprietary stuff that MS chuck out?
>
> You're not only on the wrong planet, you're in the wrong universe.

In the old days, I imagine that a reporter would scribble down his words
(with many additions and crossings-out) on the back of an envelope as he
fine-tunes them and fits them to the edited report, before learning them for
his piece-to-camera and/or reading them out in his voiceover. Nowadays I
imagine reporters have laptops for this, and for researching on Google etc.
The final set of words should therefore be available in some word-processor
format (of which Word .doc or .docx, or the open standard .odf, are
examples, though plain text could be used). This file could in theory be
sent along with the video file, as part of the reporter's workflow. The
important thing is the words, rather than the file format in which they are
sent.

Since there is some standard mechanism for the video file of the report to
be sent from reporter to studio (I'm talking about pre-recorded, not live
link), pigging-backing meta-data like date/time, location, reporter's name,
"story" name and transcript of narration will no doubt use that. After all,
the studio has to be able to distinguish between submissions from many
different reporters, maybe even multiple reports from the same reporter for
different events he has covered on the same day, so meta-data will be
needed.

There seems to be an assumption that all live programmes have to be
transcribed on-the-fly, which is the case for an unscripted discussion or
interview, but pre-recorded reports and newsreader's link are all known in
advance. In particular, the newsreader's links are *definitely* available in
electronic form because that is how the autocue is driven.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
> news:slrnsln5fp.4n04.abuse@news.pr.network...
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:40:53 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> it doesn't take much for that Word file to be sent along with the video
>>> file.
>>
>> A Word file? Are you really suggesting people type scripts into MS
>> specific
>> junk like that and then shunt them around manually somehow?
>> And makers of broadcast kit are just supposed to be able to read such
>> proprietary stuff that MS chuck out?
>>
>> You're not only on the wrong planet, you're in the wrong universe.
>
> In the old days, I imagine that a reporter would scribble down his words
> (with many additions and crossings-out) on the back of an envelope as he
> fine-tunes them and fits them to the edited report, before learning them for
> his piece-to-camera and/or reading them out in his voiceover. Nowadays I
> imagine reporters have laptops for this, and for researching on Google etc.
> The final set of words should therefore be available in some word-processor
> format (of which Word .doc or .docx, or the open standard .odf, are
> examples, though plain text could be used). This file could in theory be
> sent along with the video file, as part of the reporter's workflow. The
> important thing is the words, rather than the file format in which they are
> sent.
>
> Since there is some standard mechanism for the video file of the report to
> be sent from reporter to studio (I'm talking about pre-recorded, not live
> link), pigging-backing meta-data like date/time, location, reporter's name,
> "story" name and transcript of narration will no doubt use that. After all,
> the studio has to be able to distinguish between submissions from many
> different reporters, maybe even multiple reports from the same reporter for
> different events he has covered on the same day, so meta-data will be
> needed.
>
>
> There seems to be an assumption that all live programmes have to be
> transcribed on-the-fly, which is the case for an unscripted discussion or
> interview, but pre-recorded reports and newsreader's link are all known in
> advance. In particular, the newsreader's links are *definitely* available in
> electronic form because that is how the autocue is driven.
>
>

It has to be more than a simple text file. The words have to appear on the
screen at the right time, in different colours and often in different
locations.

Having amused myself the other day by reading the BBC webpage that Mark
Carver linked to that describes the technical standards for programme
submission, I was a little surprised to learn that the file that does
contain the subtitles is separate to the main programme containing file.
(Unless I misunderstood things). I would have thought that the latter would
be defined to allow the inclusion of subtitles. There’s probably a good
reason why not.

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 11:25:02 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 04/10/2021 10:53, Martin wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 18:32:06 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/10/2021 17:54, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/2021 16:13, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>> The BBC, C4, and C5 all have quite separate DR levels, methods and
>>>>> locations.
>>>> DR ??
>>>>
>>> Disaster Recovery
>> Mark, why were the films shown on Channel 4 and Channel 5 without subtitles
>> yesterday. Aren't the subtitles part of the recording of an Hollywood film?
>
>Possibly, though I don't think that's relevant to this. C4 have so far
>(since Sat 25th Sept, and decamping to their DR facility) been unable to
>broadcast any subtitles at all ? The programme files may well contain
>them, but they are getting lost. I think some C5 subtitles have made it
>to air. The BBC are managing to broadcast subtitles, but anecdotal
>evidence suggests they are all being produced 'live on-the-fly'.
>
>All that said some recorded programmes are only edited and subtitled
>just a few hours before transmission.
>
>Friday's Gogglebox was being played out from the edit suite in Soho on
>Friday night. The giveaway there was it ran over its time slot, and the
>BT Tower cut the feed at dead on 22:00:00 !   Doh !

Thanks
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

In article <is033uF7t43U1@mid.individual.net>,
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Friday's Gogglebox was being played out from the edit suite in Soho on
>Friday night. The giveaway there was it ran over its time slot, and the
>BT Tower cut the feed at dead on 22:00:00 !   Doh !

They did plug it back in before the titles finally ended, so maybe
no-one noticed.
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk