Trimming Television to Sell More Ads 536
gambit3 writes: "Tech TV has an article about a device called a "Digital Time Machine", that does something called "Time Trimming", which is basically a way to cut single frames from different scenes in TV programs, which, over the course of a 30 minute program, can add up to 30 seconds, which is, incidentally, the perfect length to add ANOTHER commercial."
Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:5, Informative)
There are several reasons he doesn't like it. First, in order for it to work, the program has to be buffered into the machine, which means it isn't live anymore. Second, listeners complained that it was too hard to listen to because natural pauses are eliminated.
Also, it wasn't his network that was doing it; it was individual radio stations, at least that's my understanding.
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:5, Funny)
<audio style="rush-limbaugh-voice">
Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it. Folks, I can't believe the... the... the.. gall this guy has. People, I can't emphasize this enough: The radio stations are there to make money for Clear Channel stockholders, not as some charity to provide the best possible experience for Rush's listeners.
Look, folks, if Rush doesn't want this technology applied to his show, he's free to negotiate a contract with the radio stations that enforces his wishes. Anybody in this great country of ours can negotiate any contract they want. I hope that he's not going to try to get the government weenies at the FCC to meddle with the radio stations' livelyhoods.
Sheesh. Sometimes, I just don't know. We'll be back after this...
<riff genre="80's rock">
</audio>
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:5, Insightful)
His complaining is no hypocrisy. Now if he sought the creation of some kind of government program to remedy a free market assault on the quality of his show - that would be hypocrisy.
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:4, Interesting)
Any other medium, I would agree, but those airwaves belong to the people, friend. If they are going to take them away from us, they had better provide a little quality...
Re:Sounds like "Cash" on radio (Score:3, Funny)
<audio style="rush-limbaugh-voice" mime-type="cashbox-audio-compressed>
RushLimbaughdoesn'tlikeit.Folks,Ican'tbelieveth
<riff genre="80's rock" rpm="45">
</audio>
Another technique used.... (Score:5, Interesting)
One poster mentioned that this could be used on commercials, thus giving space for more commercials, but this technique would not be allowed. The contracts (at least those that I have seen) stipulate that such measures cannot be taken during their commercials, but that is not usually the case for music.
I worked in the IT department of a local radio network that owned several local stations (I left when Clear Channel bought them out) for a couple of years.
Re:Another technique used.... (Score:3, Informative)
Yea! (Score:2, Funny)
Though, I suppose it won't matter in a few years when we all have HDTV over DSL and a free DMCA Skullfucker 4000 Market-Reaving Device free in the box
::hugs his LDs and shortwave::
Another Sleazy Great Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking a cue from all those advertisements that have been chopping the bottoms off the screen and overwriting part of the action with a semi-transparent channel logo I hereby predict:
Remember, you read it on Slashdot first!
Yep nothing new (Score:2)
Everytime you watch a movie and it starts with that little stop watch symbol next to text that says something like "This movie has been modified for time" its in use.
Re:Yep nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
Many years ago you would offten find M*A*S*H running at one of the time slots between the 5:00 and 6:30 news. The reason is that it had so many sub plots they could cut out huge amounts of it. It started out as a 30 minute show and I've seen it run in 1/2 that. I was told that a TV station would get the show from the distributers, it would be sorted by run lenght and so if they ran the news over by 7.5 minutes, they could go pull out a shortend show and then they would be back in time for the all importaint 7:00 primetime network slots. This became very clear when they showed the same epposide two days in a row and they were different cuts.
Re:Yep nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
When you see that "This film has been formatted to fit this screen and edited both for content and to run in the time allotted," the editing to run in the time alotted is not done through some mystical automatic process; it is done by humans deciding which pieces of a film will be cut. Although frames can be trimmed, the removal of words, sentences, and even whole scenes is much more common.
The only "inter-frame interpolation" that occurs in the broadcast of a movie takes place in the conversion of a movie from 24fps to 29.75fps (or 25fps) for playback in NTSC or PAL. This process (called 3:2 or 24:1 pulldown) does not affect the running time of the content.
For what it's worth, I'm a broadcast editor.
-Tom
So what's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Or, you could just not watch TV and gain 1/2 and whole hours at a time!
Re:So what's wrong with this? (Score:2)
Re:So what's wrong with this? (Score:3, Funny)
Pessimism: Every Dark Cloud Has a Silver Lining, but Lightning Kills Hundreds of People Each Year Who Are Trying to Find It.
Re:So what's wrong with this? (Score:5, Offtopic)
The one hour of TV I want to see during the week, and they fill it with redundant lip-flapping that contains no new information. Fucking football.
Re:So what's wrong with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what's wrong with this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am positive I wouldn't notice if they started putting more water in thier Coke. I'm not going to ask myself why they don't do it, though, because if I don't notice, how do I know they aren't?
Just what we need. (Score:2, Insightful)
So which frames are they cutting, and do they plan to cut the audio too? I suppose during moments of intense silence, cutting a 24/th of a second of audio won't be a big problem, but still.
I just hope its not something that chirps..or is otherwise obvious what they're doing.
-Restil
Re:Just what we need. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article clearly says that it does not pop or chirp, and that over 170 stations are already using it. I mean, if it was poping and chirping first of all everyone would know, and second of all the stations wouldn't use it.
Re:Just what we need. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would imagine the difference would be virtually unnoticeable if they cut out the first and/or last frames of each scene. Thing is, the number of scene changes varies significantly depending on the show, and the process could be difficult to automate (fast action could be mistaken for a scene change, and that's the last place you want to pull frames). Also, now that I think about it, this method probably won't get 30 seconds of extra time per 30 minute show.
To get 30 seconds out of a 30 minute show (which is really only 22 minutes long plus commercials), you have to remove one out of every 44 frames. By timing them right, it shouldn't be noticeable in most shows. The audio is analog, so it should squash without a noticeable loss in quality. As much as I hate the principle of this thing, I don't think we can complain on grounds of it decreasing the audio/video quality of our shows.
Re:Just what we need. (Score:5, Interesting)
The audio or video quality, no. The dramatic quality (such as it is) is another thing entirely. I don't know if losing one frame out of 44 can really alter our perception of a dramatic pause -- are there any editor/director types who claim that sort of precision? But that's not the issue.
It's another 30 seconds out of 30 minutes that you're not watching the program. It stretches out the commercial breaks by padding them even more. This in turn adds to the break in dramatic continuity and of course makes it even more tempting to just walk away and do something else during the commercial break -- perhaps indeed during the rest of the show.
I mean, I already notice how excruciatingly long commercial breaks are now. It's getting to where you can forget what you're watching, for the love of Pete. This is just another way for broadcast TV to commit suicide in slow motion.
Re:Just what we need. (Score:3, Interesting)
Pardon my cynicism tonight, but anybody who watches tv deserves just what they get.
Pointless device in Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, this device would sell up here about as well as bottled yellow snow.
Re:Pointless device in Canada (Score:2)
Re:Pointless device in Canada (Score:2)
Re:Pointless device in Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
Really, the only difference between PBS and the other networks is that PBS gets its money by begging its viewers. Thanks, but I actually find commercials less annoying.
Re:Pointless device in Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pointless device in Canada (Score:2)
They aren't allowed to have commercials.
True, but those underwriting messages are looking more and more like commercials.
They aren't pointless at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
These devices are used in order to compress a program into the right amount of time so you CAN put the required amount of commericals in.
It's not at *all* a way to 'scam' the consumer into watching more commercials.. just a way to 'shorten' a show so it fits your schedule.
Canadian stations use this too, you can bet on it.
Re:They aren't pointless at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Survey says... get real. It is absolutely a device to squeeze more commercials into a given time period. That's why it was made, how it is marketed, why it will be bought. Did you miss the part about the millions of dollars of extra ad revenue?
I remember from a year or so back (when I used to write closed captioning software) a couple of networks doing someting like this already. (I seem to recall PAX being one of them but wouldn't swear to that.)
The reason the whole thing sticks in my mind is that dropping frames like this plays hell with caption data and any other VBI data such as Web TV, VCHIP, etc.
Re:Another Pointless device in Canada (Score:2)
The BBC may have only a few channels, but they're actually interesting quality television. I've seen American T.V. and out of the 40 or 50 channels there's less material that's actually interesting to watch.
On top of that, there's a lot of stuff available through cable and sattelite if you really want more channels. Most of the watchable American prime-time shows are available (including some un-watchable shows like Survivor).
PAL Format (Score:2, Interesting)
If the show is running in NTSC, they could probably get a lot more out of it than 30 seconds.
The problem with these types of "automagic" machines is that it can never do it perfectly. HP has a device that fits in 1U on a rack and it will force video into your programmed specifications. We used to use it when transferring rented videos into an online editor so that we could cut preview spots together for DTV. The problem is that the video usually looked like crap after it was transferred. I'm sure it didn't make a good case for purchasing the pay-per-view version of it.
Devil's Advocate here... (Score:3, Funny)
You guys are always naysaying! Why don't you come up with an invention like inward sing--- oh wait, wrong rant....
Where to get addl time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where to get addl time (Score:3, Funny)
I already do this . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Each year, I prepare for the Super Bowl. Not that I like the Super Bowl, but apart from knowing the score at each quarter, the only knowledge you need to prove that you watched the game is what commercials were shown.
After programming my VCR to record the game, I watch the amusing commercials and fast forward through the game itself. This new-fangled "Time Machine" just gives you the illusion of actually watching the show between ads.
bah (Score:2, Funny)
Re:bah (Score:2)
I know!
And after they have given us all of that television for free, you think they would be more understanding.
(dumbass....)
Re:bah (Score:3, Funny)
Also attributed to Fred Allen (famous anti-television personality)
This could actually be good (Score:3, Interesting)
You folks are looking at it wrong... (Score:5, Funny)
Heck, I've often wanted the ability to do just this - compress a TV show I want to see so as to be better able to fit it into my time.
Now, if we could just compress the time wasted by laugh tracks....
Re:You folks are looking at it wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
And it has already gotten in trouble... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And it has already gotten in trouble... (Score:3, Funny)
"Officials at CBS' station in Pittsburgh, KDKA, said they accidentally created the delay when they used the machine during halftime to squeeze in extra advertising worth thousands of dollars." (my emphasis)
It hit the fan before.. (Score:2)
Shorter without Loss of Content? (Score:2)
s/images/scenes/
s/hear/read/
s/period of time/number of words/
Is it just me, or does that start to sound alot like Coles Notes?
Where's my time-compressing pitch-shifting tivo? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be more keen to watch some things if they'd take a lot less time - I think I might not even skip ads if I was watching at 200% normal speed.
Am I wrong, and Tivo or RePlay offers this feature already?
.
Don't just tell us, tell TiVo (Score:3, Informative)
Yes! This would be an excellent feature. Please request this from TiVo [tivo.com] - they are asking for feature suggestions. I requested this very feature a few months ago, and if enough people chime in with the same request it might just catch their attention.
To answer your question, my guess is that no PVRs offer this feature simply because PVRs have only been around for a relatively short amount of time and they just haven't had enough time to add all the features that somebody would want yet.
Wonder what the actors think? (Score:2)
Max was right (Score:2)
--
Banned from Moderating? [slashdot.org]
better idea (Score:2, Funny)
time compression (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't take credit for the idea but when I read this in a science fiction novel years ago, it really made me wonder what the average attention span will be in twenty or thirty years.
old hat (Score:2, Interesting)
'Course - I have no link, because them there were (gasp) pre-web days.
Kind of an obvious use of vid-tech though, innit?
this would concern me if (Score:3, Insightful)
I no more buy products because some clown makes me laugh, or some half naked girlie makes me excited. So what is the difference when instead of 'directly' selling me something, they are pushing some agenda that must use a fantasy environment (the fantasy environment created by ANY book, film, theater, etc) to make it sound plausable?
As long as Discovery, et al don't fall prey to this I imagine I will not even notice it.
KDKA + Steelers + Time Cutting == bad (Score:2, Informative)
Some more linkage (Score:2, Informative)
It's better than the alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
I noticed this scene-dropping one day on a re-run of "the simpsons"
But still, yet another ad can be squeezed in. I can't wait.
A few more years, and broadcast TV everywhere will be all shot to hell. The only channels left worth watching in Australia are the ABC (which doesn't have ads, being gov't funded),and SBS (who at least lumps their ads together at the end of each show). The other 3 networks are crap, with over-sensationalised news (how many more "shocking","horrific" news stories can there be?) and it seems more ads than content.
Who's up for making the next slashdot on the internet2 with video comments instead? Count me in
Television Subscription service? or Spam service? (Score:2, Interesting)
But wait, with this service it is atleast 1/3 unsolicited forced "spam!"
I understand commercials are a necessary evil that we have become acoustomed to, but why can't I have the option to pay a little bit extra for no commercials. Here's how I think the ideal situation would work...
Most television programs are filmed where approx. ten minutes of every thirty minutes are for commercial sponsors. Why not play the programs back to back, and be able to broadcast three episodes in the place of two episodes with commercials. Hopefully the concept would catch the attention of the masses and have a wide subscription clientele to make up the lost revenue brought in from commercials.
I realize that there wouldn't be much incentive for any parties other than the consumer, but I can dream - can't I?
Re:Television Subscription service? or Spam servic (Score:3, Informative)
Because, as nice as it would be, it would be a huge pain in the ass for the cable companies, TV networks, etc. to coordinate among each other. Remember, the commercials aren't paying your cable company's expenses -- they're paying the stations' and networks' expenses. And in most cases, cable companies and networks are not run by the same company (except for FTC antitrust screwups like AOLTW*). Sure, it *could* be done, but the operating costs would be outrageously high. And guess who would end up paying those costs? That's right. You.
* Going a little bit OT here, but does anybody else think that AOL being able to run free ads on such high-profile stations as CNN is a huuuuuuuuuge anti-trust problem? Remember, they own the network. They can run whatever they want on it and not have to be charged a cent. And anybody who watches CNN at all will know that they run lots and lots of AOL ads.
This is nothing to worry about (Score:2)
Of course, it is patented. (Score:2, Interesting)
Its great! (Score:2)
30 minute Shows?? (Score:2, Interesting)
wait till the next step.... (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't it affect the experience? (Score:2, Informative)
If they only used it on half hour crap sit-coms and talk shows it wouldn't be so bad. But It seems like it would ruin scenes from classic movies where a director has purposely inserted a pregnant pause or an uncomfortable silence in the dialogue or an actors face frozen in horror.
But hey! If it makes someone a few more bucks then what the hell. Maybe they could frame the Mona Lisa with LCD panels and sell advertising on them.
It makes me watch less (Score:2)
Backlash? (Score:3, Insightful)
Realistically 90% of people are going to put up with any crap you force on them, but still, this might make a lot of the type of people who read /. give up on live TV.
I also think it is silly to argue that no one will notice... I agree that it will be subtle, but think about it, .5/23= about 2.2% of the show, and that's assuming it was still a 23 min long show. Don't tell me you can hear compression artifacts in a 160kbps MP3, but you can't tell that the show is 2% faster. Doesn't break my heart with many of the shows they are playing, but 2% could very well have an effect on the timing of a dramatic scene in a good show or movie, and I think the networks are far more likely to use this in addition to and not instead of cutting scenes.
Well, it's a good thing many good TV series are coming out on DVD. And just keep watching Cartoon Network, since they have to follow the 6-min commercial limit ;)
I think if I was a director (Score:3)
Then some idiot comes along and starts chopping bits out all over the place. If the program would have worked 30 seconds faster, it would have been *made* 30 seconds faster, and had an extra few scenes. Surely?
- MugginsM
Re:I think if I was a director (Score:3, Informative)
Back in the 1960s-70s, the film itself was physically chopped, so once a scene was gone, it was GONE. That's one reason the old ST:TOS were reissued -- not just wear and tear on the old film reels that made 'em look like crap, but also many copies in syndicated circulation had become remarkably truncated.
Restoring Homer (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, they'll probably do it anyway just to add *more* commercials, and save the deleted scenes for the DVDs, damn their moneygrubbing souls. Mr. Burns would be proud.
Re:Restoring Homer (Score:4, Interesting)
Good luck, but you will most likely never see those scenes in syndication.
Not only do they cut out several (of the arguably funniest) scenes per episode, but they also fade out to commercials ridiculously early; I mean they don't even allow the scene to properly end. They will literally fade the audio out in mid-sentence of the last line of the scene, so that they can start the commercials earlier.
If that wasn't enough, they then split-screen the ending credits so that they can show ads on half of the screen! This is especially frustrating since the Simpsons often puts gags in the credits, such as voiceovers, songs, etc., which get completely talked over.
Then, as the coup de grâce, in each of the 3 scenes, they randomly flash a barely translucent "THE SIMPSONS ON FOX" banner over the top 1/4" of the screen, and they randomly put in promos for other shows over the bottom 1/4" of the screen!
This is not new at all. (Score:2)
You will see moves on TV that are "Time Compressed".. (they yanked frames to very slightly speed it up).
Radio does it.. songs play a wee bit faster in order to fit in more commerical time...
and so on, and so forth.
I know nothing at all about tv stuff, but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
For the viewer there would probably be no noticeable difference unless you closely examined the whole unedited program all the way through beforehand.. but for the big companies selling their shows it seems like it could be another chance to sue someone and get some extra spending money.
A couple of years ago (Score:2)
And, I haven't really missed it.
Sure, I still watch some shows, (Buffy, Time Team, etc) but it takes a conscious effort to remember to come back in time to catch the next bit of program.
I guess I must be fairly unique in this, since if everyone did it, the TV stations would have to start actually showing *content* again.
I'm in NZ, and the ads still take up less time than in other places - I've occasionally had a tape sent over to me from the US, and found it completely unwatcheable from all the channel promos, ads, screwing around with episodes, etc. I have trouble understanding why the Americans are so addicted to TV as a nation - perhaps it's similar to the cocaine addict who doesn't realise he's getting 95% talcum powder nowadays, just that he needs to buy more and more for it to work.
- MugginsM
Reminds of good old days in Hong Kong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reminds of good old days in Hong Kong (Score:3, Funny)
You are the product...And you taste like chicken. (Score:5, Informative)
The harvester and packager of the product is the huge machine which keeps the TV screen saturated with images targeted to specific groups.
The consumer of this product is the advertiser.
As long as you keep that in mind, all of this makes perfect sense.
The TV isn't on for YOU. It's on for them.
Spending IS NOT proportional to ads seen! (Score:2)
This is the reason that I don't understand the complaints that advertisers have with TiVo-like devices... it's as if they think I'll spend more money if I see more ads... and that's just not the case.
Advertisers are just going to have to do better at being that one ad that "sticks" in my mind.
-S
this is an old practice (Score:2)
Sometimes obvious (Score:2)
Not that it was a bad thing to get that stinker over faster.
This feature would be a great addition to Tivo, with a speed control on the remote to let you adjust the pace of a show. If the writers only had 17 minutes of script to fill the 23 minutes of a sitcom (sans commercials and credits), then speeding it up would give you the ability to compensate for the director's instructions to slow the dialogue and extend the laugh tracks.
Most shows could be watched in half the airtime, leaving more of our precious lifetimes to read /.
good god - did anyone check their site??! (Score:2)
My solution to commercials (Score:2)
I haven't noticed any decrease in my ability to attract beautiful buxom blondes with my beverage choice or to buy the toys and clothes that will make my children love me. Okay, I don't have any blonde friends or children, but I didn't before either...
-Kevin
It is noticeable (Score:2, Interesting)
What's going on? Are they removing frames? [google.com]
I've even started noticing it on video rentals.
Since it seems this doesn't bother too many people other than myself, I guess the networks will get even more brazen in the future. Who knows what else they'll come up with to sacrifice quality for a few more bucks. Oh well, I suppose it's had a good effect for me personally in that I don't watch TV any more because of it, but I sure do miss it sometimes.
Remove Redundant Data in the stream (Score:2)
Paramount has been hacking ST to bits for years (Score:3, Insightful)
Paramount has been playing all sorts of tricks with the UPN Voyager and Enterprise feeds [vidiot.com] at least since Mid to Late 1999, It's old news to me.
The interesting thing here is that the Enterprise Feeds sent to Canada [vidiot.com], on Telstar 5 TP 16 [lyngsat.com] for broadcast say on A-Channel [a-channel.com] don't have this
What we know is that this is lucurative, and people who can't compare the two will not know what it is that they are missing.
I suppose that these people [22minutes.com] will have to get a new name.
Commercials are the PURPOSE of TV (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you the viewer have demonstrated an unfortunate reluctance to immerse yourself in 30-120 minute blocks of advertisements.
Until such time as TV producers find a way to convince you to do that, you can expect them to do as much as is technically possible to add commercials until you get frustrated and stop watching TV.
The networks don't care whether you like the content of the programs. They only care whether you will watch the programs enough that a certain percentage of you see and or hear the advertisements.
Video Timing (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider all theatrical releases and most high-budget television drama that's shot on 24fps film: when shown at 30fps NTSC, it goes through 3:2 pulldown, which out of necessity assigns a varying number of video fields to each frame. Oddly enough, the resulting effect gives the material a "film look" that is usually considered a good thing. In fact, some processes exist that attempt to give a similar look to shows that are shot on video.
And when the same 24fps film is broadcast in a PAL country at 25fps, all the broadcaster usually does is just speed up the film! That's much more drastic than removing selected frames, yet does playing the film 4% faster destroy it's dramatic value? Probably not, although it seems like musicals would suffer.
VERY Old News.. (Score:3, Informative)
This is funny! Someone thinking this is "news".
Television Stations have had this capability for over 15 years now. I remember back in college (1986) when I worked for the local PBS affiliate, we had just started to get in new 1" VTR's (Video Tape Recorders) - Hitachi's. These 1" units were to replace our aging 2" Quad machines. One of the neater features of the Hitachi's were their ability to time-compress or time-expand a show.
For example, if we had a time slot of 58:20 and the show on the tape reel was 59:05, we could program the Hitachi to play 59:05 worth of tape in 58:20 with full frame lock. There was even an option available (we didn't buy it) that allowed us to connect the audio output to an Eventide Harmonizer to "pitch correct" the audio when you did this time correction to a program. This was in 1986.
This is old news, about old technology. Move along - nothing to see here....
Throwing Out The TV (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie industry has almost convinced me to stop using their product. Movie prices keep rising, the quality of the theatres keep dropping. I find it unacceptable to go to a theatre and see 5 minutes of "black rain" when there's a bright white scene. I think that movies are also moving into the abyss, much like music, but at a much slower pace. There are still enough people making interesting movies to keep my interest alive. So if I shirk theatres that's no big deal; it's simple to make a home theatre these days. And then there's the whole DVD and HDTV mess
While I gave up on network TV a long time ago, I've found that many cable/satellite channels have quality entertainment in their lineups. Because of the sheer number of available channels, I always figured that cable/satellite TV would stay relatively unscathed by all the BS that has destroyed the music industry, and is gnawing at the movie industry. Then I read articles like this, and ones that talk about the fervent attepts to destroy the ability to record television programs. I can easily see television being the next media outlet that I throw away.
If there are any music/movie/television industry workers reading this thread, I just want to make it clear that in your rabid pursuit to further unbalance the scales of product and profit you are at the very least going to lose this customer. And I can't help but think there are others who feel the same.
I guess I'm done ranting for now.
Re:Blip Verts (Score:2)
video speed (Score:3, Interesting)
- adam
Re:Not new stuff... (Score:2, Interesting)
Many TV shows in syndication (such as The Simpsons and Seinfeld) are routinely time-compressed to squeeze in an extra commercial spot. But the butchering of TV shows does not stop here unfortunately... Usually syndicators will also edit out a brief scene or two from each episode, in order to gain even more commercial time.
Needless to say, "artistic integrity" has never been part of a syndicator's vocabulary...
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Audio Synchronization? (Score:2)
Same way we used to do it in the cinema when you had a missing frame. If you stick a triangular piece of masking tape over the splice the audience never realises that it was there. The triangle causes the sound levels to be faded to zero and back again in an instant (well probably 1/100th sec).
The human ear can't detect that sort of thing because at the end of the day its actually doing a mechanical version of a fourier transform on the audio signal and drop-outs of that sort don't carry too well.
If you start doing the trick too often there is a significant chance that you miss soething important. Imagine listening to the 1812 overture with random pieces missing, so you don't hear the canon shot etc.
It is possible that they use some other sort of interpolation to smooth over the lost time but then you start to lose the sync between the actors lips and the sound track and it will start to look like Jackie Chan.
Reverse Tivo and Point of Diminishing Returns (Score:3, Informative)
Even though it's called a "Time Machine", it won't work on live telivision.
You know the instant replay feature on Tivo? This is just the reverse of that.
More interestingly... TV has a kinda standard 22 minutes of program per 1/2 hour show. This number evolved not because broadcasters didn't want to run more advertisements, but because it's the point at which balance is achieved between the numbers of spots run and the number of viewers you have to see them.
The revenue plot can be likened to a negative quadratic equation. Too many commercials and people stop tuning in, hence lost ratings and lost $$. The other side of the scale is not enough commercials, therefore not enough advertising dollars.
The vertex, if you will, is around 8 minutes of programming in a 30 minute program, and it's a number which has remained pretty constant since the mass-acceptance of television in the 1950s.
This technique will therefore really only be of value in attempting to adjust a TV show to appeal to the same sorts of people who watch infomercials. (Who the hell watches those, anyway?)