Now that we're coming to the end of summer, there are going to be more
times when the country - or region, for regional forecasts - is
completely covered, by cloud, rain, whatever.

Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover? We're not all as familiar
with the geography of the country (and/or our region of it) as the
forecasters are, and it's difficult to relate to what's happening where
without a coastline. (For example, I've just seen one where Scotland was
completely obscured by blue and green; OK, it had a few placenames
written on it [even that is unusual], but they're hard to relate to in
the short time available.)

It's especially confusing if they zoom in on a region - if it is
completely covered, it's not obvious that has happened, or if it has,
where the zoom points are.

It's _not_ meant to be a mimic of what would be seen from the space
station: the forecast is meant to be _informative_. Sure, show the
pictures if you want - but overlay the coastlines. (This used to be done
decades ago on the pictures beamed back up to the weather satellites, so
it's not hard!)

The map they show showing temperatures - which is clear, shows land and
sea - towards the end of the forecast, is often a pleasant relief.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
> coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?

You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of the
MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.

<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?bbox=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.720703125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total&timestep=1695391200000>

In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
>>coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
>
>You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of the
>MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
>
><https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b
>box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207
>03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total&timestep=169539120
>0000>

I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
forecasts should be more comprehensible. Some viewers aren't on the
internet; even those of us who are, don't necessarily have the internet
everywhere we have a TV (such as bedroom where someone getting ready to
go to work might well be watching Breakfast), or have better things to
do.

I can't think what _harm_ showing the coastlines/outlines would do to
the weather forecast, except perhaps aesthetically.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Q. How much is 2 + 2?
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1

Really? Is this supposed to be progress? Not being able to see it these
days, I naturally assumed they would show a coastline to give people a feel
for the geography.
Happy Equinox to all.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:rAIGWIoqDZDlFwDP@255soft.uk...
> Now that we're coming to the end of summer, there are going to be more
> times when the country - or region, for regional forecasts - is completely
> covered, by cloud, rain, whatever.
>
> Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
> coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover? We're not all as familiar with
> the geography of the country (and/or our region of it) as the forecasters
> are, and it's difficult to relate to what's happening where without a
> coastline. (For example, I've just seen one where Scotland was completely
> obscured by blue and green; OK, it had a few placenames written on it
> [even that is unusual], but they're hard to relate to in the short time
> available.)
>
> It's especially confusing if they zoom in on a region - if it is
> completely covered, it's not obvious that has happened, or if it has,
> where the zoom points are.
>
> It's _not_ meant to be a mimic of what would be seen from the space
> station: the forecast is meant to be _informative_. Sure, show the
> pictures if you want - but overlay the coastlines. (This used to be done
> decades ago on the pictures beamed back up to the weather satellites, so
> it's not hard!)
>
> The map they show showing temperatures - which is clear, shows land and
> sea - towards the end of the forecast, is often a pleasant relief.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In
> fact
> it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

On 22/09/2023 20:24, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
> 14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
>>> coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
>>
>> You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of
>> the MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
>>
>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b
>> box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207
>> 03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total&timestep=169539120
>> 0000>
>
> I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
> forecasts should be more comprehensible.

But they're not. The internet provides a far more comprehensive and user
definable source of information for an almost infinite range of subjects
and topics.

Forget about relying on TV for anything beyond a very superficial level
of information.

It's 2023, not 1983

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/09/2023 20:24, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
>> 14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
>>>> coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
>>>
>>> You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of
>>> the MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
>>>
>>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b
>>> box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207
>>> 03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total&timestep=169539120
>>> 0000>
>>
>> I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
>> forecasts should be more comprehensible.
>
> But they're not. The internet provides a far more comprehensive and user
> definable source of information for an almost infinite range of subjects
> and topics.
>
> Forget about relying on TV for anything beyond a very superficial level
> of information.
>
> It's 2023, not 1983
>

Never get to follow the TV weather forecast anyway - my wife is always in
full flow criticising the appearance of the presenter…..

In message <uepkc9$1dddo$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 24 Sep 2023 15:24:57,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[]
>> But they're not. The internet provides a far more comprehensive and user
>> definable source of information for an almost infinite range of subjects
>> and topics.
>>
>> Forget about relying on TV for anything beyond a very superficial level
>> of information.

But that's no reason why that superficial level can't accept
suggestions/observations. The few seconds (literally, often) allocated
to the weather forecast could be made much more informative - without
requiring any more time - by incorporating just this minor change.
>>
>> It's 2023, not 1983
>>
Yes, in 1983 there would have been at least some chance of a suggestion
being listened to.
>
>Never get to follow the TV weather forecast anyway - my wife is always in
>full flow criticising the appearance of the presenter…..
>
(-:. Same here; even though mostly non-operational, being male I do
enjoy observing the presenter (who is usually female, on the forecasts I
see), but this does mean I rarely absorb anything they are saying! I
have wondered if it'd be better if they weren't in vision (giving them a
cursor or similar to point to where the weather they're describing is),
but I suspect that would be unpopular.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You'll need to have this fish in your ear. (First series, fit the first.)

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:tmjnv+uEoeDlFwQZ@255soft.uk...
> In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
> 14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
>>> coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
>>
>>You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of the
>>MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
>>
>><https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b
>>box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207
>>03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total&timestep=169539120
>>0000>
>
> I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
> forecasts should be more comprehensible. Some viewers aren't on the
> internet; even those of us who are, don't necessarily have the internet
> everywhere we have a TV (such as bedroom where someone getting ready to go
> to work might well be watching Breakfast), or have better things to do.

It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at the end
of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK, where southern
England is at a larger scale than Scotland? I remember there was a phase
when they did this, and blamed it on wanting to show satellite photos of the
cloud cover - has no-one at the Met Office got software such as Paint Shop
Pro that can correct for parallelogram distortion of an oblique photo?

I agree about coastlines: they are one of the most important ways of
locating where you are on a map, especially if it's a part of the country
that you are less familiar with, where town names are less useful. I live
fairly close to Flamborough Head and the lump sticking of out the east coat
of northern England shows up even at a fairly small scale so it's a useful
pointed to "I live near here, so what's the weather in that area?".

> I can't think what _harm_ showing the coastlines/outlines would do to the
> weather forecast, except perhaps aesthetically.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head: these days it seems to be
*far* more important that something looks nice than that it is usable :-(

In message <uersdv$1t7dj$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:54:33,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> writes
[]
>It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at
>the end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK,
>where southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland? I remember
>there was a phase when they did this, and blamed it on wanting to show
>satellite photos of the cloud cover - has no-one at the Met Office got
>software such as Paint Shop Pro that can correct for parallelogram
>distortion of an oblique photo?

No, that's one of the few improvements that changed when they fell out
with the Met Office and switched to someone else ("Meteo"?). [Or, to be
fair, they probably found that the someone else cost less.] It did occur
to me (before the change) that they could still use such shots, as long
as they occasionally had one from a satellite to the _north_, so that
Scotland appeared big and England small (could still have north at the
top). But no, now they do indeed show maps as if taken from directly
above the centre of the area shown.
>
>I agree about coastlines: they are one of the most important ways of
>locating where you are on a map, especially if it's a part of the
>country that you are less familiar with, where town names are less
>useful. I live fairly close to Flamborough Head and the lump sticking
>of out the east coat of northern England shows up even at a fairly
>small scale so it's a useful pointed to "I live near here, so what's
>the weather in that area?".

I'm glad someone else sees what I mean! Way back (half a century or so?)
when they used to take the images from the (very simple - no moving
parts I think! Just a rotating cylinder with rod aerials at the ends)
satellites, and beam them back up to the same satellite which then
relayed them so anyone could use them, they used to invert the pixels of
the coastline in what they sent up, so it looked black if the image was
continuous cloud cover.
>
>> I can't think what _harm_ showing the coastlines/outlines would do to
>>the weather forecast, except perhaps aesthetically.
>
>I think you may have hit the nail on the head: these days it seems to
>be *far* more important that something looks nice than that it is
>usable :-(

To be fair, I don't think it was/is _deliberate_: someone wants us to be
able to see the images they are getting from the (more modern)
satellite, unencumbered. The person wanting us to see those is probably
so familiar with the points of view of the images that it doesn't
_occur_ to them that most of us aren't.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... the pleasure of the mind is an amazing thing. My life has been driven by
the satisfaction of curiosity. - Jeremy Paxman (being interviewed by Anne
Widdecombe), Radio Times, 2-8 July 2011.

NY wrote:

> It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at the
> end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK, where
> southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland?

I seem to remember a fuss when they removed the tilt?

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Andy Burns writes:
>
>> You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of
>> the MeteoGroup ones on the TV
>
> I could, but why should I have to

It seems odd that you want to know the weather, but are then prepared to
wait until it happens to come on the telly

> to put it another way, the TV
> forecasts should be more comprehensible.
> I can't think what _harm_ showing the coastlines/outlines would do to
> the weather forecast, except perhaps aesthetically.

You can pretty well guarantee any request you make to the BBC will go
nowhere, maybe try asking the Kiwis direct?

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:44:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <uepkc9$1dddo$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 24 Sep 2023 15:24:57,
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>>Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>[]
>>> But they're not. The internet provides a far more comprehensive and user
>>> definable source of information for an almost infinite range of subjects
>>> and topics.
>>>
>>> Forget about relying on TV for anything beyond a very superficial level
>>> of information.
>
>But that's no reason why that superficial level can't accept
>suggestions/observations. The few seconds (literally, often) allocated
>to the weather forecast could be made much more informative - without
>requiring any more time - by incorporating just this minor change.
>>>
>>> It's 2023, not 1983
>>>
>Yes, in 1983 there would have been at least some chance of a suggestion
>being listened to.
>>
>>Never get to follow the TV weather forecast anyway - my wife is always in
>>full flow criticising the appearance of the presenter…..
>>
>(-:. Same here; even though mostly non-operational, being male I do
>enjoy observing the presenter (who is usually female, on the forecasts I
>see), but this does mean I rarely absorb anything they are saying! I
>have wondered if it'd be better if they weren't in vision (giving them a
>cursor or similar to point to where the weather they're describing is),
>but I suspect that would be unpopular.

I once suggested they should dress for the weather to set the mood:
gloves and scarf for the cold, umbrella for the rain, beachwear in the
summer.

In article <uersdv$1t7dj$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
> news:tmjnv+uEoeDlFwQZ@255soft.uk...
> > In message <kn5kufFo7j7U2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 22 Sep 2023
> > 14:59:44, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
> >>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can I appeal to those with the power to do it to introduce black
> >>> coastlines, regardless of the cloud cover?
> >>
> >>You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of the
> >> MeteoGroup ones on the TV, e.g.
> >>
> >><https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/cloud-cover-map#?b
> >>box=[[48.922499263758255,-26.235351562500004],[61.60639637138628,18.7207
> >>03125000004]]&model=ukmo-ukv&layer=cloud-amount-total&timestep=169539120
> >>0000>
> >
> > I could, but why should I have to - to put it another way, the TV
> > forecasts should be more comprehensible. Some viewers aren't on the
> > internet; even those of us who are, don't necessarily have the internet
> > everywhere we have a TV (such as bedroom where someone getting ready
> > to go to work might well be watching Breakfast), or have better things
> > to do.

> It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at the
> end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK, where
> southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland? I remember there
> was a phase when they did this, and blamed it on wanting to show
> satellite photos of the cloud cover - has no-one at the Met Office got
> software such as Paint Shop Pro that can correct for parallelogram
> distortion of an oblique photo?

BBC tv weather forecasts have not been provided by the Met Office for quite
some years,

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 25/09/2023 14:27, Andy Burns wrote:
> You can pretty well guarantee any request you make to the BBC will go
> nowhere, maybe try asking the Kiwis direct?

Just think how many queries the BBC get every day!

I don't want my licence money going on answering pointless questions and
moans about the TV Licence.

I am sure we all hate automated systems but it is very expensive to have
experienced people answering trivial questions which is what I am sure
most are.

On 24/09/2023 19:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> But that's no reason why that superficial level can't accept
> suggestions/observations. The few seconds (literally, often) allocated
> to the weather forecast could be made much more informative - without
> requiring any more time - by incorporating just this minor change.

If you want a more detailed forecast then watch one of the forecasts
that does a more detailed one, the forecasts after the news get very
limited time - I remember one forecaster telling how how might have
written his forecast to fit into the time allocated and then just before
he was on, he would be told they have lost a minute because something
trivial like a football match finishing late. He then had to alter his
script live as he did the forecast.

Most people are not interested anyway.

In article <ues6a4$1v7g7$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 25/09/2023 14:27, Andy Burns wrote:
> > You can pretty well guarantee any request you make to the BBC will go
> > nowhere, maybe try asking the Kiwis direct?

> Just think how many queries the BBC get every day!

> I don't want my licence money going on answering pointless questions and
> moans about the TV Licence.

> I am sure we all hate automated systems but it is very expensive to have
> experienced people answering trivial questions which is what I am sure
> most are.

It is expensive, which is, presumably, why my department was shrunk and
then abolished.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In message <ues6mn$1v7g7$2@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:49:59,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
>On 24/09/2023 19:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> But that's no reason why that superficial level can't accept
>>suggestions/observations. The few seconds (literally, often) allocated
>>to the weather forecast could be made much more informative - without
>>requiring any more time - by incorporating just this minor change.
>
>
>If you want a more detailed forecast then watch one of the forecasts

I don't want _more_ detail, I want the time I do get to convey
information more effectively.

>that does a more detailed one, the forecasts after the news get very
>limited time - I remember one forecaster telling how how might have
>written his forecast to fit into the time allocated and then just
>before he was on, he would be told they have lost a minute because
>something trivial like a football match finishing late. He then had to
>alter his script live as he did the forecast.

Yes, I think that's far from uncommon. They have to be very adaptable.
>
>Most people are not interested anyway.
>
True: on the News channel, it's obviously just while the rest of the
world has ad.s.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Find out what works. Then do it. That's my system. I'm always surprised it
isn't more popular. - Scott Adams, 2015

In message <kndg6bF3pd6U3@mid.individual.net> at Mon, 25 Sep 2023
14:27:40, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns writes:
>>
>>> You could view the MetOffice maps and charts on the web, instead of
>>>the MeteoGroup ones on the TV
>> I could, but why should I have to
>
>It seems odd that you want to know the weather, but are then prepared
>to wait until it happens to come on the telly

For tonight's (if it's morning) or tomorrow's, the wait isn't important.
The news channel does weather at least once or twice an hour anyway,
most of the time - it's used as a filler where the rest of the world
gets ad.s.
>
>> to put it another way, the TV forecasts should be more
>>comprehensible. I can't think what _harm_ showing the
>>coastlines/outlines would do to the weather forecast, except perhaps
>>aesthetically.
>
>You can pretty well guarantee any request you make to the BBC will go
>nowhere, maybe try asking the Kiwis direct?

I know. That's why I made it here: I know at least one relevant person
reads here sometimes, or at least did.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Find out what works. Then do it. That's my system. I'm always surprised it
isn't more popular. - Scott Adams, 2015

In message <ob33hilaffmm0gd8667nkpudj6gjr4mc7r@4ax.com> at Mon, 25 Sep
2023 14:41:23, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:44:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <uepkc9$1dddo$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 24 Sep 2023 15:24:57,
>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
>>>Never get to follow the TV weather forecast anyway - my wife is always in
>>>full flow criticising the appearance of the presenter…..
>>>
>>(-:. Same here; even though mostly non-operational, being male I do
>>enjoy observing the presenter (who is usually female, on the forecasts I
>>see), but this does mean I rarely absorb anything they are saying! I
>>have wondered if it'd be better if they weren't in vision (giving them a
>>cursor or similar to point to where the weather they're describing is),
>>but I suspect that would be unpopular.
>
>I once suggested they should dress for the weather to set the mood:
>gloves and scarf for the cold, umbrella for the rain, beachwear in the
>summer.

I remember on one of the few documentary prog.s about it they do, to
some extent: one of the male forecasters said he kept a light summer
suit (or similar) there for when doing BBC World forecasts, as wearing
British tweeds when doing them for somewhere tropical wouldn't seem
right.

Don't think any of them do beachwear though!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Find out what works. Then do it. That's my system. I'm always surprised it
isn't more popular. - Scott Adams, 2015

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:kndfd6F3pd6U2@mid.individual.net...
> NY wrote:
>
>> It's a long time since I've watched the national weather forecast at the
>> end of the news. Do they still show the oblique map of the UK, where
>> southern England is at a larger scale than Scotland?
>
> I seem to remember a fuss when they removed the tilt?

A fuss in the sense of "please go back to the tilted image" or in the sense
of "at *last* a map that corresponds once again to the normal map of the UK
that we see in atlases"?

Weather satellites are not geostationary, are they? They are lower orbit and
therefore multiple ones are needed to give continuous coverage. That allows
an orbit that places the satellite more centrally over the UK (doesn't it?),
rather than having to be (as for geostationary) over the equator looking
obliquely. But even if the cloud-cover photos are oblique, it is a trivial
software exercise to apply parallelogram-distortion correction so the UK
looks "correct". Hell, I was writing software that did this in the early
1990s, though not for weather photos, and it's been part of Paint Shop Pro
and Photoshop for yonks.

(As an aside, my parents had to take a lot of photos of war memorials and
rolls of honour - lists of solders who died in WWI on a written register
that is often under glass - for a web site that they ran. If flash was
needed, or a window was reflected in the glass, it was necessary to take the
photo obliquely to avoid the flash being reflected back into the lens. So
parallelogram correction was needed. But I discovered that simple
parallelogram correction usually alters the aspect ratio, so I got my dad to
take another head-on photo, complete with reflected flash, to show the
correct aspect ratio so the parallelogram-corrected photo could be stretched
to restore it. http://buckinghamshireremembers.org.uk/)

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:6X10EtUiWdElFwZw@255soft.uk...
> I remember on one of the few documentary prog.s about it they do, to some
> extent: one of the male forecasters said he kept a light summer suit (or
> similar) there for when doing BBC World forecasts, as wearing British
> tweeds when doing them for somewhere tropical wouldn't seem right.
>
> Don't think any of them do beachwear though!

I wish you hadn't implanted in my brain the mental image of Carol Kirkwood
in a bikini ;-) It's bad enough hearing her talking about doggers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFkSVkHhWFw

NY wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I seem to remember a fuss when they removed the tilt?
>
> A fuss in the sense of "please go back to the tilted image" or in the
> sense of "at *last* a map that corresponds once again to the normal map
> of the UK that we see in atlases"?

Maybe fuss is over-stating it, but I do remember people
noticing/mentioning it.

> Weather satellites are not geostationary, are they?

Some aren't and you have to grab the signal as they fly over, but others
(GOES-E and GOES-W) are geostationary and effectively have half the
planet in view between them.

> They are lower orbit
> and therefore multiple ones are needed to give continuous coverage. That
> allows an orbit that places the satellite more centrally over the UK
> (doesn't it?), rather than having to be (as for geostationary) over the
> equator looking obliquely. But even if the cloud-cover photos are
> oblique, it is a trivial software exercise to apply
> parallelogram-distortion correction so the UK looks "correct". Hell, I
> was writing software that did this in the early 1990s, though not for
> weather photos, and it's been part of Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop for
> yonks.

On 25/09/2023 17:45, charles wrote:
> It is expensive, which is, presumably, why my department was shrunk and
> then abolished.

It is more the general non-technical enquiries / complaints that I was
thinking of.

On 25/09/2023 19:46, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Don't think any of them do beachwear though!

Surprised that Channel 4 hasn't had naked females doing the weather
forecast.

In message <ueso1k$22tr2$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Sep 2023 20:45:31,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
>news:6X10EtUiWdElFwZw@255soft.uk...
>> I remember on one of the few documentary prog.s about it they do, to
>>some extent: one of the male forecasters said he kept a light summer
>>suit (or similar) there for when doing BBC World forecasts, as
>>wearing British tweeds when doing them for somewhere tropical
>>wouldn't seem right.
>>
>> Don't think any of them do beachwear though!
>
>I wish you hadn't implanted in my brain the mental image of Carol
>Kirkwood in a bikini ;-) It's bad enough hearing her talking about
>doggers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFkSVkHhWFw

Closest I can get for you: https://bapwatch.com/GMTV/index.htm (yes I
know CK wasn't on GMTV, but that's how he's organised it). But I think
our Carol is naughtier than you might think: the forecast she did for
Easter this year was quite something! (It was at
https://twitter.com/bbcweather/status/1643625817698607111, but is no
longer.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Warning. The following ad break may contain sofas. - seen on Dave, 2018-4-20