From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and The Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I am
interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size
suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in any programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was that
they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so 'they
don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me the date
when the programme was first broadcast, information which had not been available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The Radio Times.
And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.
Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 23/07/2025 08:30 PM, Davey wrote:

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and The Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I am interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in any programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was that
they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so 'they
don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me the date
when the programme was first broadcast, information which had not been available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The Radio Times.
And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.
Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

The version(s) available for streaming and/or downloading from All4
don't usually suffer from that syndrome.

Depending on the channel, some catch-up versions don't have the constant on-screen graffiti either.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 24/07/2025 01:04, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2025 08:30 PM, Davey wrote:

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and The
Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I am
interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size
suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in any
programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was that
they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so 'they
don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me the date
when the programme was first broadcast, information which had not been
available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The Radio Times.
And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.

Listening and doing something about it are are two different things, unfortunately.

Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

The version(s) available for streaming and/or downloading from All4
don't usually suffer from that syndrome.

Depending on the channel, some catch-up versions don't have the constant on-screen graffiti either.

True, but in a series they usually put "the next programme will start in
x seconds". If x is shorter than when the copyright date the programme
you've just been watching was supposed to appear, you're out of luck.
--
Jeff
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

In message <105rd9h$12q47$1@dont-email.me>, Davey
<davey@example.invalid> writes

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and The >Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I am >interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size >suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in any >programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was that
they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so 'they
don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me the date
when the programme was first broadcast, information which had not been >available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The Radio Times.
And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.
Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

The fact that you received such a quick response suggests that they get
a lot of complaints about this and so have a stock reply that they can
use. I agree that the practice is very annoying.

My own current TV gripe is with the BBC. I've been watching the
documentary series "Human" on BBC 2. It has constant "background" music,
which is more like foreground music, as it actually seems to be louder
than the voice of the presenter. I've had to switch on subtitles to
catch everything that is said. Why does a documentary series even need
any music? I can understand it with dramas, though even then it
shouldn't be loud enough to prevent one hearing all of the dialogue.
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:05:33 +0100
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

In message <105rd9h$12q47$1@dont-email.me>, Davey
<davey@example.invalid> writes

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and
The Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989,
I am interested in developments, as new things are continually being >discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the >programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or >originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end >credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a
size suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date
was omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in
any programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was
that they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so
'they don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me
the date when the programme was first broadcast, information which
had not been available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The
Radio Times. And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback. >Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and >cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

The fact that you received such a quick response suggests that they
get a lot of complaints about this and so have a stock reply that
they can use. I agree that the practice is very annoying.

My own current TV gripe is with the BBC. I've been watching the
documentary series "Human" on BBC 2. It has constant "background"
music, which is more like foreground music, as it actually seems to
be louder than the voice of the presenter. I've had to switch on
subtitles to catch everything that is said. Why does a documentary
series even need any music? I can understand it with dramas, though
even then it shouldn't be loud enough to prevent one hearing all of
the dialogue.

As I have defective hearing, I always have the subtitles turned on.
When they are available, that is. Talking Pictures unfortunately
doesn't have them, but considering how the site is financed, I can
forgive that.
But what annoys me is that there are frequent mistakes in the
subtitles, sometimes comical, but at other times a 'not' is left out,
totally reversing the intended meaning. I can understand mistakes on
live broadcasting, but they should be corrected, and there is no excuse
for these mistakes on pre-recorded programmes. Ch. 4's Formula 1
broadcasts are especially poor at this.
So be careful of believing the subtitles! You may not get 'everything
that is said'.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 24/07/2025 08:01 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 24/07/2025 01:04, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2025 08:30 PM, Davey wrote:

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and The
Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I am
interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size
suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in any >>> programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was that
they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so 'they
don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me the date
when the programme was first broadcast, information which had not been
available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The Radio Times.
And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.

Listening and doing something about it are are two different things, unfortunately.

Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

The version(s) available for streaming and/or downloading from All4
don't usually suffer from that syndrome.

Depending on the channel, some catch-up versions don't have the constant
on-screen graffiti either.

True, but in a series they usually put "the next programme will start in
x seconds". If x is shorter than when the copyright date the programme
you've just been watching was supposed to appear, you're out of luck.

I was only thinking of programmes from BBC, ITV, C4 and C5. Even the
Beeb vandalises the credits at times.

On Sky+ you download programmes from the catch-up service and it almost
always gives better results than does the "live" TX.

On the main Sky channels, they often leave off the DOG on catch-up DLs.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 24/07/2025 08:01 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 24/07/2025 01:04, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2025 08:30 PM, Davey wrote:

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and The
Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I am
interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size
suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in any >>> programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was that
they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so 'they
don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me the date
when the programme was first broadcast, information which had not been
available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The Radio Times.
And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.

Listening and doing something about it are are two different things, unfortunately.

Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

The version(s) available for streaming and/or downloading from All4
don't usually suffer from that syndrome.

Depending on the channel, some catch-up versions don't have the constant
on-screen graffiti either.

True, but in a series they usually put "the next programme will start in
x seconds". If x is shorter than when the copyright date the programme
you've just been watching was supposed to appear, you're out of luck.

I am certain that Netflix and Prime do it deliberately in order to
prevent full-episode recording.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

Ch. 4's Formula 1
broadcasts are especially poor at this.

Or just especially poor.

Apart from the British GP they provide no live coverage of any race -
yet the "highlights" go on for longer than the race :-\

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 24/07/2025 in message <meeianF7n1pU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:

I was only thinking of programmes from BBC, ITV, C4 and C5. Even the Beeb >vandalises the credits at times.

I have complained to the BBC that on broadcasts from places like the UN Security Council they cover the name plate of the person speaking with a
BBC banner.

Their reply essentially was "so what".
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
We chose to do this not because it is easy but because we thought it would
be easy.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 2025-07-24 10:05, John Hall wrote:

My own current TV gripe is with the BBC. I've been watching the
documentary series "Human" on BBC 2. It has constant "background" music, which is more like foreground music, as it actually seems to be louder
than the voice of the presenter. I've had to switch on subtitles to
catch everything that is said. Why does a documentary series even need
any music? I can understand it with dramas, though even then it
shouldn't be loud enough to prevent one hearing all of the dialogue.

Yup, it's maddening. Mainly because, as you say, it makes dialogue
difficult to understand, but also partly because, to me as a former
amateur musician, the music is banal lift musack with correspondingly
zilch artistic merit - I'm guessing that nearly always it will be royalty-free otherwise they wouldn't be wasting scarce finances on it,
and that probably sometimes it's computer generated.

A classic example of 'more' being so very much 'less'.

It's becoming a major problem with mainstream TV and Radio as the people
who make the programmes more and more are a generation raised on social
media such as YouTube. Anyone who watches the YT videos about Ukraine
of, say, 'Kanal13' or 'The Sun' probably like me ends up killing the
sound frequently, wearing out the Mute button on their remote, because
of the teeth-grindingly annoying choice of programmed-loop background
and infill music, which in the case of the latter is particularly loud. However, I must distinguish from the above description Jerome Starkey's 'Frontline' videos which, particularly when you consider this is 'The
Sun', is excellent.

Over the last decade or so, it's becoming more and more of a problem
infesting the BBC, guilty programmes even include 'More Or Less', a
factual programme where music is *TOTALLY* unnecessary.

The particularly stupid thing about it is that their main captive
audience is older people, but they do this sort of thing in an apparent attempt to target younger people, who probably won't be watching or
listening anyway, so they alienate their captive audience in an attempt
to capture an audience that most probably they'll never capture.

Complain about it. Keep complaining about it.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 24/07/2025 14:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have complained to the BBC that on broadcasts from places like the UN Security Council they cover the name plate of the person speaking with a
BBC banner.

Their reply essentially was "so what".

Depends on the source, could be an advert or a foreign telephone number
to telephone with comments.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 20:30:57 +0100
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and
The Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I
am interested in developments, as new things are continually being discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in
any programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was
that they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so
'they don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me
the date when the programme was first broadcast, information which
had not been available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The
Radio Times. And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.
Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

For the sake of accuracy, I must correct my original post by saying
that the programme was on Ch.5, not Ch.4 They seem fairly
interchangeable, anyway.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 24/07/2025 05:11 PM, Davey wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 20:30:57 +0100
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and
The Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I
am interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size
suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in
any programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was
that they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so
'they don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me
the date when the programme was first broadcast, information which
had not been available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The
Radio Times. And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.
Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

For the sake of accuracy, I must correct my original post by saying
that the programme was on Ch.5, not Ch.4 They seem fairly
interchangeable, anyway.

Channell 5 is, IMHO, better than 4.

Channel 4 used to be the one to watch, but it has now dropped
downmarket. Channel 5 is the best of the first five in the EPG for
documentary and "lifestyle" programmes.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 24/07/2025 14:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 24/07/2025 in message <meeianF7n1pU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:

I was only thinking of programmes from BBC, ITV, C4 and C5. Even the
Beeb vandalises the credits at times.

I have complained to the BBC that on broadcasts from places like the UN Security Council they cover the name plate of the person speaking with a
BBC banner.

Their reply essentially was "so what".

That is a very typical BBC response. I have written to them about a
number of things over the last 50 years or so, and their responses could always be summed up as,

"We are the BBC, therefore we know best. Go away and don't bother us again."




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 25/07/2025 09:11, John Armstrong wrote:

That is a very typical BBC response. I have written to them about a
number of things over the last 50 years or so, and their responses could always be summed up as,

"We are the BBC, therefore we know best. Go away and don't bother us
again."

Hardly surprising when you consider some of the ridiculous moans and complaints they get.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:05:33 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

Why does a documentary series even need any music?

Because Gen Z (or whatever) can't do anything without it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On 27/07/2025 13:12, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:05:33 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

Why does a documentary series even need any music?

Because Gen Z (or whatever) can't do anything without it.

Quite ! Our lad WhatsApp'd our family group with a video of him doing a
sky dive.

I responded with, "well, I didn't realise there's actually Techno music playing up there at 10,000 ft ?"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:01:04 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

On 24/07/2025 01:04, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2025 08:30 PM, Davey wrote:

I watched a programme on Ch. 4 the other evening, with Dan Snow and The
Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an. Since I visited the site in 1989, I am
interested in developments, as new things are continually being
discovered. I saw one of the two horse-drawn chariots shown in the
programme.
Annoyingly, there was no hint as to when the programme was made or
originally broadcast, if indeed it had been, so I waited for the end
credits which usually show the date of production.
But in typical Ch. 4 fashion, the credits were squeezed down to a size
suitable for an ant to read, and the final part with the date was
omitted completely.
I complained to Ch. 4, about both the lack of a date, and also saying
that the practice made it impossible to see who had been featured in any >>> programmes. I was amazed to receive a prompt response, which was that
they know that many viewers don't read the credits (true), so 'they
don't really worry about them' (paraphrased). But they told me the date
when the programme was first broadcast, information which had not been
available on the Freeview onscreen 'Info', nor in The Radio Times.
And they said that they do listen to viewers' feedback.

Listening and doing something about it are are two different things, >unfortunately.

Whether or not it would do any good, it does at least provide support
for the continuing complaining about this practice of squeezing and
cropping of the end-of-programme credits.

The version(s) available for streaming and/or downloading from All4
don't usually suffer from that syndrome.

Depending on the channel, some catch-up versions don't have the constant
on-screen graffiti either.

True, but in a series they usually put "the next programme will start in
x seconds". If x is shorter than when the copyright date the programme >you've just been watching was supposed to appear, you're out of luck.

There should be a button to cancel the next proramme, but you have to
find it before the x seconds.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

In message <slrn108c5u9.1hek.abuse@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> writes

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:05:33 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> >wrote:

Why does a documentary series even need any music?

Because Gen Z (or whatever) can't do anything without it.

On the latest episode of "Human", the background music - though still annoyingly present - had been reduced in volume to a point where I no
longer needed to use subtitles to catch everything that was said.
Perhaps someone at the BBC had belatedly realised that drowning out the
voice of the presenter was not a good idea.
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.digital-tv

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 10:08:13 +0100
John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

In message <slrn108c5u9.1hek.abuse@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> writes

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:05:33 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

Why does a documentary series even need any music?

Because Gen Z (or whatever) can't do anything without it.

On the latest episode of "Human", the background music - though still annoyingly present - had been reduced in volume to a point where I no
longer needed to use subtitles to catch everything that was said.
Perhaps someone at the BBC had belatedly realised that drowning out
the voice of the presenter was not a good idea.

the someone's mother probably complained when nothing was audible!
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2