Weather forecasts - please blacken coastlines

[J. P. Gilliver]

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.

[Andy Burns]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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>

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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.

[Mark Carver]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Andy Burns

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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

[Tweed]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Andy Burns

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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…..

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver
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.

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver
It's 2023, not 1983

Yes, in 1983 there would have been at least some chance of a suggestion
being listened to.

Post by Tweed
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.

[Scott]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:44:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver
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.

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver
It's 2023, not 1983

Yes, in 1983 there would have been at least some chance of a suggestion
being listened to.

Post by Tweed
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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Scott
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 19:44:30 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

[]

Post by Scott

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Tweed
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.

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!

[NY]

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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by NY

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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. http://youtu.be/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.)

[JMB99]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Don't think any of them do beachwear though!

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

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Scott
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

[John Williamson]

Post by Scott
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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by John Williamson

Post by Scott
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.

[JMB99]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by JMB99

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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.

Post by JMB99
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.

Post by JMB99
Most people are not interested anyway.

True: on the News channel, it's obviously just while the rest of the
world has ad.s.

[NY]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Andy Burns

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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?".

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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 :-(

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <uersdv$1t7dj$***@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:54:33,
NY <***@privacy.invalid> writes
[]

Post by NY
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.

Post by NY
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.

Post by NY

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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.

[Andy Burns]

Post by NY
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?

[NY]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by NY
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/)

[Andy Burns]

Post by NY

Post by Andy Burns
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.

Post by NY
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.

Post by NY
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.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Andy Burns <***@andyburns.uk> wrote:

[...]

Post by Andy Burns
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. :-)

[John Williamson]

Post by Liz Tuddenham
[...]

Post by Andy Burns
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.

[Andy Burns]

Post by John Williamson

Post by Andy Burns
(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.

<Loading Image...>

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <1qhnqc8.6ckjdm12x40o0N%***@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:16:36, Liz Tuddenham

Post by Liz Tuddenham
[...]

Post by Andy Burns
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".

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by NY
(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.

[NY]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by NY
(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.

[JMB99]

Post by NY
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.

[John Williamson]

Post by JMB99
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.)

[JMB99]

Post by John Williamson
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.

[JMB99]

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!

[charles]

Post by NY

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Andy Burns

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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,

[Andy Burns]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Andy Burns
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

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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?

[JMB99]

Post by Andy Burns
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.

[charles]

Post by JMB99

Post by Andy Burns
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.

[JMB99]

Post by charles
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.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Andy Burns
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.

Post by Andy Burns

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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.

[Liz Tuddenham]

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

[...]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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.

[Brian Gaff]

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...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by J. P. Gilliver
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.
--
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