Tillerman

It sounds as if something in your system folder isn't starting correctly and a file maybe corrupted hence why you can hear your hard drive spinning away. You can spend ages trying to find out what it is, or considering its still under warranty, take it back and get it fixed so you don't invalidate the warranty.

Should have made a TV programme about it. I can see it now.... "The Bridge That Guy re-Built" He can tour the network repairing derelict or outdated canal structures in a bid to save industrial heritage, in his own unique way. Chief.

Richard, I think you are one of the few that doesn't charge extra for fuel and insists on a damage waiver premium. I've seen costs rocket in the last 2-3 years. Have a look round and you'll find 58' 4 berths for £1,400 for a week in "high season" - still cheaper than flying a family abroad, but perhaps not as cheap as a stay-cation in sunny Bognor! You have to be realistic these days, the money just isn't around and for families who are forced to take holidays in the height of the season their choice of options is limited.

Of course, if you wanted to do Oxford properly, then get hold of a short term license and then you could moor up just past Folly Bridge turn in the river and come back viaPort Meadow and back onto the Oxford at Dukes Cut. That way you get to see Oxford at its best IMHO.

You can go through Isis lock, wind and come back through without the need for a license.

Sorry Chris, I was adding to post #25 and on reading previous posts its been slightly confusing as to if you represent the channel you supply to and your role as a programme maker. Niche channels, like any commercial channel, rely on revenue from advertisers or sponsors and that was what I was refering to, as was, I believe the poster in #25 so these comments are aimed, primarily at the channel rather than the programme makers. I am pleased you are making a living from making programmes that you feel passionate about and have found a market for that material. Sadly I've seen plenty of niche channels come and go because they forget that the principal aim to their audience is a constant supply of programme material and in this day and age providing programming purely for broadcast without finacial sponsorship is a non starter. Channels of all sizes must look at recouping their investments from other sources of revenue, including online, if they are to survive. Even the mainstream channels now insist on co production and sponsorship to provide the budgets as money gets tighter and budgets get squeezed. But skimping on any aspect of the production, however tempting, will hit the channels (big or small) in the end.

Sadly Chris the way the broadcast industry is going it would be foolish to limit your production to using out-of-date equipment. I see the tech spec listed for the IC as 4x3 - industry standard is 16x9 (14x9 protect) and as everyone is gearing up for analogue switch off, any programmes shot using SD low res equipment will look out of date. HD is the way forward I'm afraid. Your equipment is probably best suited to the online market which is where you will probably find your niche market, but by the time you've pad for your airtime license and Sky fees I would be surprised if you made any money at all! Skimping on sound and editing will ultimately show in the end product - you have to put all of your available money on screen as that is your current market. Cutting costs will ultimately loose you revenue and audiences.

Laughed me blooming socks off chief!

Did you do the online then Tony or were you in offline? Offline editors do have some say in the way content is manipulated, especially concerning matters of factual accuracy.

...or it could have been a pirate radio station! Anyway, the Radiocommunications Agency no longer exsits as its now Ofcom. Since 2003 I bet there were far fewer prosecuted under the act as I suspect Ofcom has no one to do spot checks and indeed the local office in my neck of the woods, Nowich, closed down years ago - so who actually polices the act taking into account that Ofcom has sole responsibility for all broadcasting and see's in its sites the major broadcastors who get fined far greater sums that the £5k you would get under the WT Act of 1949 (amended 2006) In fact have a look at Ofcoms website and you'll see amounts almost at bankers bonus levels being handed out to broadcasters for falling foul of the Broadcasting Act - little, if any, mention of VHF fines. And, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not saying that because the system is not properly controlled and policed that you can resort to anarchy, I am mearly pointing out the facts.

Ah, I see... I worked with Avid Media Composer when I was at ITV

"Following rules" is what I was intending to say with the "by the book" phrase which didn't necesaryily mean "the law" eg following the rules of posting on this forum? Taking 12 items to the "only 10 items" checkout in a supermarket you get the drift. And if this particular requirement is equally un-enforced, you can see how easy it is for people to flout it.

You seem to know a lot about this - are you involved in the production in some way?? Not many people on here would know about "slot averages" when talking about BARB figures for instance... Ha, I see you are, Tony, an AVID viewer.. (cough)

Did I intimate that? No, didn't think so. I asked if you had always followed exactly "the book" - which does not always mean "the law" So you've never exceeded the speed limit (in a car) even by 2 miles an hour? But not a law delivered by parliament

and this particular law would be enshrined in which particular Act of Parliament? Or is it actually a "guidline" or recomendation issued by the PLA?

So we've always done everything by the book, followed exactly the letter of the law and done nowt we might have got a "ticking off" for....Yeah right? Reminds me of Al Murray's..."if we had too many rules where would we be...? Although I don't know Evo, for all we know he seems better equipped and possibly more experienced than some boaters I've met coming the other way!

In response to Tiny's posting - That will largely depend on how successful this current series is - weighing up things like viewing figures etc., You can't help thinking that its a one trick pony - once he's kitted Reckless out what is there to do? Another one? And as the series is explaining, whilst we can be proud of our industrial heritage, very few of the places he has/is visiting are no longer viable businesses. Unless there's a sudden demand for narrowboats to be kitted out with Crapper porcelainn toilets, steam shower units and large bells for alarms....

Beg pardon??

That is certainly how things have happened recently so there is some precendence set. You could also time it so you go on a morning tide (we last did it at 8am) where the tidal section from Limehouse is a lot quieter than during "office hours" In fact 8am on a Sunday it will probably be you, your "buddy boat" in front and that's about it!

Sometime in the Spring (date not known yet) In the meantime, a dress malfunction reported here

I wasn't after any support, just making my own oberservations. Each to their own.

I said it tried to cram too much into the first programme and what was promised didn't deliver. That can only be a good thing, I agree entirely. Then don't call it The Boat That Guy Built and list it as a boat renovation series! As I said, it is trying to be several genres all at once, part history, science, travelogue and so it sometimes misses the point. That said, I am quite prepared to give it a couple of episodes to sort itself out. I suspect that programme 1 was more about introducing us to Guy than anything else and I think he came across as a very enthusiastic presenter. As everyone keeps saying, if this is aimed at a "mass audience" then there are many people who won't know who he is, so its important his character comes across early on in the series.

BBC1 commission factual programmes in the same way Discovery and Nat Geo does. Where did I say that it would do any harm to the boating world?

A couple of thoughts: 1: It's not a "light entertainment" programme, its classed as a factual programme. For that reason it should, at least, try not to mislead and be factually correct in its content and the way it presents the content. The three locations used were all in different parts of the country and the impression was that Guy and Reckless travelled to each of these locations - for time, we don't need to see the journey in full, but we do need to be made aware of it - which they did. 2: If it's aimed at "the general public/mass audience" then who are we on here? Just because we have an interest in the canals and boating does not exclude us from being a part of the audience that this series was made for. 3: The title is "The Boat That Guy Built" - about a narrowboat renovation project. Where, in programme 1 did we see any narrowboat renovation? WE saw a blast furnace and the Wedgewood factory and some tea tasting. Perhaps the actual renovation process doesn't start until programme 2 - either way, the description of the series was misleading. I don't want to appear like a pedant but for a BBC factual programme I expected more and I think it crammed too much in. It didn't set up anything about the boats history other than a couple of throw away lines and we didn't hear what plans were instore - is it going to be a modern fit out? Fully traditional? It's a fusion of several things - part boat restoration, part canal history, part industrial heritage and part travelogue. A lot to cram into a 29 minute programme Lets hope programme 2 delivers a little more "meat!"