BBC 2 tonight - Britain's Secret Seas & Operation Crossbow
Discussion
8pm BBC 2 - Britain's Secret Seas has a bit on the bomding range at Garvie Island.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011d77c
Clip of the show here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13281991
9pm Operation Crossbow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011cr8f
Clip here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gx3gd
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011d77c
Clip of the show here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13281991
9pm Operation Crossbow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011cr8f
Clip here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gx3gd
Just watched Operation Crossbow, what amazing stuff! More programs like that please.
The amount of technology developed in WW2 is truly epic from photography at great risk to spying and eavesdropping to the amount of sheer weapons and physical structures built.
Many of those structures the Germans built (V1 sites) in short time were virtually bomb proof that is some feat all built pretty much off the misery of enslaved to death Jews.
The amount of technology developed in WW2 is truly epic from photography at great risk to spying and eavesdropping to the amount of sheer weapons and physical structures built.
Many of those structures the Germans built (V1 sites) in short time were virtually bomb proof that is some feat all built pretty much off the misery of enslaved to death Jews.
I thought the Operation Crossbow one was very good - lots of information well presented and without noticeable dumbing down. Visually, the 'blurry edge milkbottle effect' was a bit wearing and unecessary.
Strategically, it's interesting to note that while the Allied armies were advancing towards Germany, so much of Hitler's effort was directed into killing a few civilians in another country. The first V2 killed three people. Bad for them of course, but of absolutely no effect in the big picture.
So Cherwill made a classic mistake of intelligence, namely that if your side hasn't thought of something, the other side can't have done. Another classic mistake (applicable to both sides) is to assume that your code hasn't been broken... psychology is a funny thing.
Strategically, it's interesting to note that while the Allied armies were advancing towards Germany, so much of Hitler's effort was directed into killing a few civilians in another country. The first V2 killed three people. Bad for them of course, but of absolutely no effect in the big picture.
So Cherwill made a classic mistake of intelligence, namely that if your side hasn't thought of something, the other side can't have done. Another classic mistake (applicable to both sides) is to assume that your code hasn't been broken... psychology is a funny thing.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Quite a good programme but why oh why do these eejits have to refer to AEROPLANES as 'planes'?
You might as well call them Spokeshaves FFS!
a small price to pay, surely for having these sort of programmes on the TV. A bit like every ship is a boat. To get every histirical fact right, and presented 100% fatcually would lead to a very dry programme and probably unwatchable to all but a few ardent fans who know that the lengths they went to to get a 3 bladed, rather then 4 bladed prop in the background aircraft was worthwhile. You might as well call them Spokeshaves FFS!
But yes, very enjoyable. I would love to see a programme about the V3 project too
Could be worse - could have called them "airplanes".
I don't tend to watch TV on Sundays so will need to catch up with the Operation Crossbow doc later in the week.
It seems that there was some unecssary "arty" camera work and post production "image enhancement". I hate all these techniques as they are obviously done to make the programme "less boring". Are they so unsure about the content of their own programme and that the narrative isn't good enough to hold the attention of the viewer?
I don't tend to watch TV on Sundays so will need to catch up with the Operation Crossbow doc later in the week.
It seems that there was some unecssary "arty" camera work and post production "image enhancement". I hate all these techniques as they are obviously done to make the programme "less boring". Are they so unsure about the content of their own programme and that the narrative isn't good enough to hold the attention of the viewer?
I wondered about that at the time Eric but I guess it's because of the way a Stereoscope works, ie you look at one photo' with your left eye through one lens and a second (slightly different) photo' with your right eye through the other lens. Your brain then integrates the two images and you 'see' a 3D picture.
I'm not sure how you could show that on TV without computer imaging because the TV picture acts as a single picture that you are viewing with both eyes.
A better explanation of how a stereoscope works might have been useful as part of the programme.
I'm not sure how you could show that on TV without computer imaging because the TV picture acts as a single picture that you are viewing with both eyes.
A better explanation of how a stereoscope works might have been useful as part of the programme.
I had a grey one of those (Viewmaster) and I also have a Victorian stereo viewer with original stereo photos.
I would have thought the process of getting a 3D image by superimposing two photos taken from slighly different viewpoints was obvious - to have explained it might have been going down the dumbing-down route - we are supposed to be intelligent after all!
To answer Eric, you can't reproduce a 3D image on a 2D (ie TV) screen) so they simulated it with a computer graphic flyround. It actually did the job very well, although the shadows 'grew' so whoever did the graphics forgot to fix the sun in position relative to the scene!
I think I'd have enjoyed working in the photographic unit at Medmenham.
I would have thought the process of getting a 3D image by superimposing two photos taken from slighly different viewpoints was obvious - to have explained it might have been going down the dumbing-down route - we are supposed to be intelligent after all!
To answer Eric, you can't reproduce a 3D image on a 2D (ie TV) screen) so they simulated it with a computer graphic flyround. It actually did the job very well, although the shadows 'grew' so whoever did the graphics forgot to fix the sun in position relative to the scene!
I think I'd have enjoyed working in the photographic unit at Medmenham.
Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 16th May 11:10
Eric Mc said:
Did they mention band leader Billy Cotten and his work in helping establish the photo-recce unit of the RAF?
No, probably because the programe was about Operation Crossbow not PR per se.However it was the subject of a documentary some while ago; I remember how the RAF said it couldn't be done so Cotton got in a 'plane, flew there (Wilhemshaven?) and was back with the photos same day.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I wondered about that at the time Eric but I guess it's because of the way a Stereoscope works, ie you look at one photo' with your left eye through one lens and a second (slightly different) photo' with your right eye through the other lens. Your brain then integrates the two images and you 'see' a 3D picture.
I'm not sure how you could show that on TV without computer imaging because the TV picture acts as a single picture that you are viewing with both eyes.
A better explanation of how a stereoscope works might have been useful as part of the programme.
this ^^^^I'm not sure how you could show that on TV without computer imaging because the TV picture acts as a single picture that you are viewing with both eyes.
A better explanation of how a stereoscope works might have been useful as part of the programme.
i wasnt very clear before, the modern computer simulations rotated the pictures around to show how different details could be picked out by the people using the steroscope things - id always thought that the steroscopes where just magnifying glasses on stands when i had seen pictures of them in the past.
the other good computer graphic part was the zoom around the model made of the rocket testing site.
it was good to see a program where the balance between using computer cgi stuff, modern footage, old footage etc was struck quite well.
im going to watch it again this week it was that good!
guru_1071 said:
id always thought that the steroscopes where just magnifying glasses on stands
That's it - two magnifying glasses, one for each eye.Because you're viewing the image from 'high up', the distance between the points from which the two images were taken needs to be more than the standard 3" fitted by Mother Nature. Ovelapping the two images by 60% allowed the viewer to be used over a usable area of two prints.
This is how it started:
One thing that wasn't explained was the big Swiss beastie they imported to get more accuracy in measurements. Imported via Germany, obviously
Simpo Two said:
One thing that wasn't explained was the big Swiss beastie they imported to get more accuracy in measurements. Imported via Germany, obviously
they mentiond the fancy cameras they bought (from germany!) and flew back in a mosquito, complete with guy in the bomb bay, after some excitement they pilot forgot to shut the bomb doors - v. cold trip back for the guy in the back!Bought in Switzerland and transported through German to Sweden. However they didn't explain what made the machines better than the existing equipment, other than a 'floating dot'. And it was only required, apparently, because the Govt wouldn't believe the first V2 photos. Neither did they believe the PR pilot who actually saw one going up through the clouds, doh!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff