Scott wrote:

>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.

They wear a more casual outfit for the insert during Countryfile.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 25/09/2023 14:41, Scott wrote:

> 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.
>
For a short time, there was a fad for doing the weather report from the
roof, so they had no choice.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

[...]
> 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.

Impossible, unless they are infintely far away. :-)

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

> 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.

It's the opposite way around on Radio 4: The Ads take precedence and
the weather forecast is gabbled into the remaining time.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 26/09/2023 09:16, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> 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.
>
> Impossible, unless they are infintely far away. :-)
>
>
Geostationary orbit gives them almost a third of the planet each, if you
can remove the distortion round the edges. Allowing for overlaps, half
the planet isn't too far off a usable result.

That's why the satellite broadcasters only really need 3 satellites to
cover everywhere except the Arctic and Antarctic. The extras are for
bandwidth.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message <knfi1fFe63qU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 26 Sep 2023
09:11:27, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>On 25/09/2023 14:41, Scott wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>For a short time, there was a fad for doing the weather report from the
>roof, so they had no choice.
>
I think they sometimes still do - but I've never seen them do it in
pouring rain, heavy snow, or strong wind, so presumably it's a bit
self-selecting.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea
that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing
things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

In message <1qhnqc8.6ckjdm12x40o0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:16:36, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
>Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> 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.
>
>Impossible, unless they are infintely far away. :-)
>
>
I see where you're coming from, but he did say "between them".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea
that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing
things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

John Williamson wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> (GOES-E and GOES-W) are geostationary and effectively have half
>>> the planet in view between them.
>>
>> Impossible, unless they are infintely far away.   :-)
>
> Geostationary orbit gives them almost a third of the planet each, if you
> can remove the distortion round the edges. Allowing for overlaps, half
> the planet isn't too far off a usable result.

<https://cdn5.slideserve.com/9658536/satellite-meteorology-n.jpg>

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 20:28:08 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>(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/)

Photographers used to be able to do this in the camera in the olden
days of plate cameras with bellows, which could be adjusted to keep
the plate, the lens and the subject all parallel. There's no need for
'correction' if the optics can be set up to make the geometry correct
to begin with. I think you can get attachments for modern 35mm film
cameras that will do the same.

Of course if it hasn't been practicable to do this, it's useful to be
able to make adjustments in software after the event. The camera in my
phone has a 'document' mode that can do it in software before the
picture is taken.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8665hi1ase6r4nc1vnkdd7eh3gamol8srd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 20:28:08 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>(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/)
>
> Photographers used to be able to do this in the camera in the olden
> days of plate cameras with bellows, which could be adjusted to keep
> the plate, the lens and the subject all parallel. There's no need for
> 'correction' if the optics can be set up to make the geometry correct
> to begin with. I think you can get attachments for modern 35mm film
> cameras that will do the same.
>
> Of course if it hasn't been practicable to do this, it's useful to be
> able to make adjustments in software after the event. The camera in my
> phone has a 'document' mode that can do it in software before the
> picture is taken.

I've seen examples of photos taken (without further darkroom/Photoshop
tweaking) on "view cameras" which allow the lens and film to be swivelled in
opposite directions to correct for "buildings that lean backwards" when the
camera is tilted upwards. The degree of correction is remarkable. I suppose
the viewfinder has ruled lines that can be compared with those on the
subject so you swivel the optical plane (viewfinder and film) until the
vertical sides of the building are parallel with the rules lines on the
viewfinder screen.

Providing there is adequate digital resolution, it's a lot easier to do it
after the event, especially if you need to correct for slight out-of-true in
*two* directions and to correct for rotation as well. But if you can make
the gross correction optically before taking the photo, and only make minor
corrections digitally, so much the better.

The results for the site didn't have to be perfect, but just needed to show
a reasonable rectangular view of a gravestone or Roll of Honour if possible.

On 26/09/2023 09:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Photographers used to be able to do this in the camera in the olden days
> of plate cameras with bellows, which could be adjusted to keep the
> plate, the lens and the subject all parallel. There's no need for
> 'correction' if the optics can be set up to make the geometry correct to
> begin with. I think you can get attachments for modern 35mm film cameras
> that will do the same. Of course if it hasn't been practicable to do
> this, it's useful to be able to make adjustments in software after the
> event. The camera in my phone has a 'document' mode that can do it in
> software before the picture is taken.

I take photographs of War Memorials for the IWM WMR.

Reflections are difficult, I usually just take from several pictures
from different and, with luck, all the names can be read using two or
three of the images.

If possible I bounce the flash off the ceiling or walls and have a
diffuser on it.

I have a portable floodlight that I can use which allows me to see any
reflections.

I use Corel PaintShop Pro which allows me to do perspective correction,
it is usually very effective and give a good 'flat' view of the
memorial. I think it usually works best if you not zoom right on the
memorial and leave plenty of space around it.

I also sometimes find it better to take picture from some distance away
using my 500MM lens.

This

https://www.flickr.com/photos/doffcocker/53209625684

is taken from around here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/doffcocker/53209626454

I keep meaning to try photogrammetry but never managed to get it right!
I have seen people doing it on just a mobile phone!

On 26/09/2023 10:16, NY wrote:
>
>
>
> I've seen examples of photos taken (without further darkroom/Photoshop
> tweaking) on "view cameras" which allow the lens and film to be
> swivelled in opposite directions to correct for "buildings that lean
> backwards" when the camera is tilted upwards. The degree of correction
> is remarkable. I suppose the viewfinder has ruled lines that can be
> compared with those on the subject so you swivel the optical plane
> (viewfinder and film) until the vertical sides of the building are
> parallel with the rules lines on the viewfinder screen.
>
> Providing there is adequate digital resolution, it's a lot easier to do
> it after the event, especially if you need to correct for slight
> out-of-true in *two* directions and to correct for rotation as well. But
> if you can make the gross correction optically before taking the photo,
> and only make minor corrections digitally, so much the better.
>
> The results for the site didn't have to be perfect, but just needed to
> show a reasonable rectangular view of a gravestone or Roll of Honour if
> possible.

Always take tall buildings from further away and keep the camera
vertical then crop out the ground between you and the building.

On 26/09/2023 12:36, JMB99 wrote:

> Always take tall buildings from further away and keep the camera
> vertical then crop out the ground between you and the building.
>
>
Now try that in a city centre, which is where you find most tall
buildings. It's a problem even with buildings such as York Minster,
which is next to a reasonable large square. Even Birmingham Town Hall
(To mention one I have tried it on) is difficult, as it was built on a
mound next to a large square, so you are always looking up at it.

St. Paul's in London is even worse as the only way you can get a decent
distance from the main entrance is to go down a hill. All the views from
other directions are from close up, as buildings have been put up as
close as they could get away with, so your only chance at a reasonably
undistorted view is to get to the correct window. (Drones are not
permitted to be used there.)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/09/2023 13:32, John Williamson wrote:
> Now try that in a city centre, which is where you find most tall
> buildings. It's a problem even with  buildings such as York Minster,
> which is next to a reasonable large square. Even Birmingham Town Hall
> (To mention one I have tried it on) is difficult, as it was built on a
> mound next to a large square, so you are always looking up at it.
>
> St. Paul's in London is even worse as the only way you can get a decent
> distance from the main entrance is to go down a hill. All the views from
> other directions are from close up, as buildings have been put up as
> close as they could get away with, so your only chance at a reasonably
> undistorted view is to get to the correct window. (Drones are not
> permitted to be used there.)

Obviously not always practical but with a decent camera it is usually
possibly. But a warning to avoid tilting the camera upwards if possible.