"Midnight on the Firing Line" What's the verdict?
B5 Fan
now. I am wondering what everyone's opinion is on how it looks. I'm suspicious
that they are just cropping the top and bottom still, but I will reserve
judgment until I have an opportunity to view the pan and scan copy of it.
One person's Crusade for wisdom and truth
It's me, what else needs to be said :-)
Thanks Jms for Babylon 5, hope you
have better luck in the future with Crusade
Jms at B5
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Claudia Mastroianni
: It looks right to me.
Yup. Except for the moment when Londo's room got dropped in a few
seconds ahead of time, when we should have been seeing CGI of the
raiders' C&C ship. An odd moment, but it rather proves they went in
and re-edited things together.
Claudia
--
"Whats the name of the word for the precise moment when you realize that
you've actually forgotten how it felt to make love to somebody you
really liked a long time ago?" "There isn't one." || Delirium
"Oh. I thought maybe there was." "No. There isn't." || & Dream
Aubrey W. Adkins
on my tv. The widescreen is indeed that. Even the CGI looks alright even
though it is cropped. If WB would put this version on DVD, I don't think
anyone would have much to gripe about.
Aubrey
Jms at B5 wrote:
> It looks right to me.
>
BAMMFrazer
like a tea kettle. ;-)
Gotta admit, if they were gonna have an editing blooper, you couldn't get
one much funnier then that.
"B5 Fan" <and...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000927192319...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
Brian Downing
Well, other than the "...which looks something like... a pitcher?"
cutting error that was mentioned earlier, the right channel sound
here (on DirectTV) was quite bad in the second half of the show.
Lots of static when people were talking. This bad sound wasn't
carried into the commercials, however. I was wondering if that
was Sci-Fi's problem or a DirectTV problem. (Or perhaps Sci-Fi's
feed to DirectTV.)
-bcd
--
** Brian Downing
** bdow...@lavos.net
DarthwattoAIM
>cutting error that was mentioned earlier, the right channel sound
>here (on DirectTV) was quite bad in the second half of the show.
>Lots of static when people were talking. This bad sound wasn't
>carried into the commercials, however. I was wondering if that
>was Sci-Fi's problem or a DirectTV problem. (Or perhaps Sci-Fi's
>feed to DirectTV.)
I use Dish Network and I didn't have that problem, so it was probably a DirecTV
problem.
D.W.
Ronald Holder
noticably duller, and also the video is degraded in quality;
artifacting was very noticable on items like Miss Winter's dress
in the bar scene near the end, and fades to black.
I am very disappointed in the poor quality of the show as SciFi
is showing it. I have a tape from TNT (made on S-VHS, standard
play), and the difference in quality is definitely noticable.
The commercials, and the next show after B5, had the usual sharp
video and clean audio.
I will check other episodes of the show, but unless I see a major
improvement in future episodes, I am going to stick with the tapes
I made.
Ron Holder
"Brian Downing" <bdow...@lavos.net> wrote:
> cutting error that was mentioned earlier, the right channel sound
> here (on DirectTV) was quite bad in the second half of the show.
> Lots of static when people were talking. This bad sound wasn't
> carried into the commercials, however. I was wondering if that
> was Sci-Fi's problem or a DirectTV problem. (Or perhaps Sci-Fi's
> feed to DirectTV.)
>
DelennToo
wrote:
>I think it is worse than the static in one channel; the sound was
>noticably duller, and also the video is degraded in quality;
>artifacting was very noticable on items like Miss Winter's dress
>in the bar scene near the end, and fades to black.
>I am very disappointed in the poor quality of the show as SciFi
>is showing it. I have a tape from TNT (made on S-VHS, standard
>play), and the difference in quality is definitely noticable.
>The commercials, and the next show after B5, had the usual sharp
>video and clean audio.
>I will check other episodes of the show, but unless I see a major
>improvement in future episodes, I am going to stick with the tapes
>I made.
>
>Ron Holder
Now, that *is* strange, as I started reading this thread with the idea of
commenting on the beautiful clarity of the widescreen picture. I have never
seen the show, whether in syndication or on TNT, with the picture so crisp and
clear, the contrast deep and 3-dimensional looking, and the sound was okay too.
I wonder if it has something to do with the cable network carrying things as
opposed to Sci-Fi's feed or the quality of the film they're showing?
**Also, on 27 Sep 2000 17:35:40 -0700, "BAMMFrazer" (BAMMF...@att.net) wrote:
>It was awesome.... but I didn't know a raider >command ship looked exactly
like a tea kettle. ;-)
>
>Gotta admit, if they were gonna have an editing >blooper, you couldn't get one
much funnier then >that.
Oh, I *KNOW*! My kids and I all laughed our heads off at that - they should put
that on a blooper tape.
Penny Rothkopf
Dele...@aol.com
Claudia Mastroianni
: I think it is worse than the static in one channel; the sound was
: noticably duller, and also the video is degraded in quality;
: artifacting was very noticable on items like Miss Winter's dress
: in the bar scene near the end, and fades to black.
I didn't notice artifacting, but I admit I'm not watching
it on the best television. Surely, however, artifacting is inevitable
when you reduce the number of scan lines as is being done here?
I'm not making SP copies of this, but I'll tuck it all onto SLP...
the wide composition of the council chambers, shots taking in all
of C&C, extra bits of the dressing of Londo's rooms... it's nice.
Claudia
--
"College towns are the best 'cause people don't mind
acting stupid in public." -- Woody, Zot!
Jms at B5
is a function of going from the PAL wide masters to NTSC....
John
cruiser getting cut into with a tea kettle or some such thing. I was very
pleased.
My only remaining issue is with the voiceover and squished screen at the end
of the show.
Thanks Sci-Fi.
John
Herranen Henrik
> I'm wondering if the artifacting, which I noticed primariliy at the fade-outs,
> is a function of going from the PAL wide masters to NTSC....
One or two years ago I wrote a lengthy article to this newsgroup on why
converting PAL master tapes back to NTSC for DVD masters is a _very_
_bad_ idea, and cannot result in anything else than a picture quality
disaster. At that time, nobody was interested.
Dejanews tells me articles older than May 15, 1999 are unavailable so
I'll rephrase some main thoughts of that article.
First, as a basis for this article have a look at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/ to get some idea of
how film is normally transferred to video. Then the rest of this may
be easier to understand.
HOW TO MAKE A PAL MASTER OF BABYLON 5 (or any other US TV series / movie)
To generate PAL video masters, there are two main problems. First,
the frame rate of NTSC is 60 fields/s, whereas PAL is 50 fields/s.
Secondly, NTSC is 525 lines/frame, PAL is 625 lines/frame. (A frame
consists of two combined fields).
While resolution can be changed with bilinear filtering if a full
original frame is available, these two frame rates are essentially
incompatible.
Film is shot at 24 frames/s. In addition Babylon 5's CGI shots are done
at 30 frames/s.
The film speed of 24 frames/s cannot be nicely converted to PAL's 50
fields/s. Now there are two alternatives:
1) Playback the original source material at 25 frames/s. This is used
at least in the buy-on-video tapes and Finnish broadcasts.
Good:
+ Fits PAL 50 fields/s tv system perfectly
+ Picture quality for live-action shots is very good
Bad:
- CGI shots are now at 31.25 frames/s, and they can only be
converted using interpolation, which makes fields all
blurry.
- A 44 minute episode only lasts 42 minutes.
- Sound is slightly higher; music is not in-tune anymore (doesn't
bother 99% of watchers)
2) Playback the original source material at 24 frames/s. This is used at
least in original British and Norwegian broadcasts.
Good:
+ Sound tone is correct
+ Episode lasts the correct time
Bad:
- Picture looks bad all the time. 24->25 conversion just cannot be
done in any graceful manner, and still-frames always look bad.
- Because of extensive filtering, especially vertical picture
resolution is less than one half of optimum.
- As far as I know, the PAL widescreen masters are done with this
method. At least the only episode I've seen in 16:9 was (And
the Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place).
Ok, now we've got the PAL master tape. It's either done with Method 1 (M1),
where all CGI is broken, or Method 2 (M2), where everything is broken.
HOW TO GO BACK TO NTSC FROM THE PAL MASTER
It's not before here this gets complicated, because here we have a
full 4 different options. However, based on "And the Rock Cried Out"
episode I've seen, I'll make the assumption that the PAL 16:9 masters
were done with M2, which is the worse one of the two PAL-making
alternatives.
Here I'll need some help. Would someone please tell me the net length
on "Midnight on the Firing Line"? Is it 42, 44, or 46 minutes long?
The following will only be valid if it's 44 minutes (and nothing cut
from the original episode, of course).
Ok, we used the not-speed-converting Method 2, which destroyed the
original film frames (if you freeze-field on your VCR, you see that
when something is moving, you often see a double-image). Now, if we
use this master to go back to NTSC, we are NOT going to get back the
original clean film frames, but rather even worse artifacts (possibly
even triple-images on VCR freeze-field), and with abysmal resolution.
(Could someone check this?)
I have yet to see Babylon 5's new SciFi broadcasts. However, I'll write
a new report in a few weeks when I do. At that time I don't have to be
guessing, but can give you a better verdict.
How sad it is that they never got more than half the series published
on NTSC laserdiscs. They looked so good; I would certainly have bought
also the other half of the series in that format, especially when it
seems that 16:9 masters are impossible to get in acceptable picture
quality.
Sigh. Perhaps making effects on video for Babylon 5 was a bad idea
after all. For classics like The Prisoner they could always go back to
original film and remaster it so that PAL DVDs of the 60s series look
better than NTSC LDs of Babylon 5.
- Henrik
--
You know you've been watching Babylon 5 too much when...
you're playing Battleship and you grin knowingly whenever someone calls B-5.
Trent Piepho
Herranen Henrik <leo...@assari.cc.tut.fi> wrote:
>Ok, we used the not-speed-converting Method 2, which destroyed the
>original film frames (if you freeze-field on your VCR, you see that
>when something is moving, you often see a double-image). Now, if we
>use this master to go back to NTSC, we are NOT going to get back the
>original clean film frames, but rather even worse artifacts (possibly
>even triple-images on VCR freeze-field), and with abysmal resolution.
>(Could someone check this?)
I have a copy of the TNT broadcast of MotFL on a VHS tape, and I digitally
recorded the SciFi one that was on today on my computer. The digital one is
at 29.97fps 320x184 (16:9...) field capture. I don't have a very big hard
disk, and could only spare a GB and half, which isn't enough for a full frame.
I've got two capture cards and can watch both versions side by side. I was
planning on putting up a web page if I could find any scenes with interesting
differences between the two versions. I take it that a 24->50->60 fps double
conversion process is going to cause the triple images on fast moving objects
do to motion compensation? I'll see if I can find any problem scenes that
show this. Would a panning shot with the background slowly moving across the
screen be a good place to look?
>How sad it is that they never got more than half the series published
>on NTSC laserdiscs. They looked so good; I would certainly have bought
>also the other half of the series in that format, especially when it
>seems that 16:9 masters are impossible to get in acceptable picture
>quality.
I thought that B5 was shot on film, then converted to hi-res digital video on
an Avid editing system. It would seem that this digital 24fps master would be
the "definitive source" of the finished episode. It seems that this then gets
converted to NTSC or PAL, in either 16:9 flat, 16:9 anamorphic (I wish), or
4:3 pan and scan. So why should 19:9 NTSC need to come from PAL source?
>Sigh. Perhaps making effects on video for Babylon 5 was a bad idea
>after all. For classics like The Prisoner they could always go back to
>original film and remaster it so that PAL DVDs of the 60s series look
>better than NTSC LDs of Babylon 5.
Since the effects were done on computer, like all effects now days, there is
no way to generate them on film, as computers only do digital. If you put
them on film, you're just taking a digital image and printing it on film.
Going from the digital image on film to NTSC/PAL is going to be worse than
just going straight digital to NTSC/PAL. Of course, if you what you are
saying is why didn't they render the effects at 24fps in film level
resolution, well... that takes more time and costs more money.
Herranen Henrik
> I've got two capture cards and can watch both versions side by side. I was
> planning on putting up a web page if I could find any scenes with interesting
> differences between the two versions. I take it that a 24->50->60 fps double
> conversion process is going to cause the triple images on fast moving objects
> do to motion compensation?
This is what should happen. Of course this won't be shown in every frame
because at some points the time-alignation is close enough that
double-frames are not needed. However, when you look carefully, I'd
expect that even some triple-images can be seen.
Also, if you have recorded the new episode with some digital system
with sub-NTSC vertical resolution, that may add a double-image of its
own, depending on how it stores frames (does it use one or two source
fields).
> I'll see if I can find any problem scenes that
> show this. Would a panning shot with the background slowly moving across the
> screen be a good place to look?
I'd rather recommend faster movement, like fast pans - or even better -
when someone is moving cosiderably, like waving his/her hands.
> >How sad it is that they never got more than half the series published
> >on NTSC laserdiscs. They looked so good; I would certainly have bought
> >also the other half of the series in that format, especially when it
> >seems that 16:9 masters are impossible to get in acceptable picture
> >quality.
>
> I thought that B5 was shot on film, then converted to hi-res digital video on
> an Avid editing system. It would seem that this digital 24fps master would be
> the "definitive source" of the finished episode.
For live-action footage this is true. However, as we all know, the
NTSC-based CGI effects are the ones causing all the trouble. So, unlike
the old series like The Prisoner, Star Trek TOS etc etc etc, there
exist no film prints that could be turned into full-blown Babylon 5
episodes.
> It seems that this then gets
> converted to NTSC or PAL, in either 16:9 flat, 16:9 anamorphic (I wish), or
> 4:3 pan and scan. So why should 19:9 NTSC need to come from PAL source?
Because the PAL master was available and doesn't need anyone to
recompose scenes for 16:9, let alone re-rendering graphivs. If the
current widescreen versions are conversions from PAL masters, this is
indeed a sad situation.
> Since the effects were done on computer, like all effects now days, there is
> no way to generate them on film, as computers only do digital. If you put
> them on film, you're just taking a digital image and printing it on film.
True. However, if you first render the scenes in a very high resolution
and then print them on film, you don't only have a HDTV ready film print
of the episode, you also can arrange a real film showing.
As a realist I understand very well that the good old Amigas they used
in the beginning for CGI rendering would simply have died if they would
have been asked to render anything much above NTSC resolutions. Still,
it is sad if the first US TV show to be shot with 16:9 and HDTV in
mind can't even be shown in letterboxed NTSC with good quality.
> Going from the digital image on film to NTSC/PAL is going to be worse than
> just going straight digital to NTSC/PAL. Of course, if you what you are
> saying is why didn't they render the effects at 24fps in film level
> resolution, well... that takes more time and costs more money.
I understand this completely. And because it seems to be so hard to get
anything better than the original NTSC 4:3 masters, I surely hope that
they had published the whole series on laserdiscs. That way I could at
least have good copies of the 4:3 versions. Now a videophile Babylon 5
fan has no options at all.
Sigh. Hope they could at least get LeXX on good-quality DVD.
- Henrik
--
Laulut, joita tervemieliset joukot mielellään laulavat, ovat varmasti hyviä.
Lauluja, jotka ovat perineet kansanlaulujen muodot js joista joukot pitävät,
tulisi kehittää, vaikka niissä onkin vanhanaikaista hyräilyä.
-- Kim Il Sung
Iain Clark
"Claudia Mastroianni" <cma...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:8qu1hh$gr0$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> seconds ahead of time, when we should have been seeing CGI of the
> raiders' C&C ship. An odd moment, but it rather proves they went in
> and re-edited things together.
>
was whether Sci-Fi would be cutting or muting the series for language. Do I
take it from the lack of comments that they left in Londo's "bastard G'Kar"
in MotFL?
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Mark D. McKean
<rjho...@altelco.net> wrote:
> I think it is worse than the static in one channel; the sound was
> noticably duller, and also the video is degraded in quality;
> artifacting was very noticable on items like Miss Winter's dress
> in the bar scene near the end, and fades to black.
> I am very disappointed in the poor quality of the show as SciFi
> is showing it. I have a tape from TNT (made on S-VHS, standard
> play), and the difference in quality is definitely noticable.
> The commercials, and the next show after B5, had the usual sharp
> video and clean audio.
I'm surprised. What I saw had what I consider noticeably better picture
and sound than the TNT version. In fact, the sound was better than even
the WHV tapes. (Of course, having a digital cable provider may have had
something to do with the improvements I saw.) There was definitely no
static in the audio I got, so I seriously doubt your audio troubles are
from SFC's end. Those of you having audio problems should check their
own setups and/or talk with their cable providers.
--
Mark D. McKean - The Quantum Panda - qpa...@iwaynet.net
kevin kenney
the new widescreen part...
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Clark" <iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: "Midnight on the Firing Line" What's the verdict?
> Just out of interest, the other question that's been going around recently
> was whether Sci-Fi would be cutting or muting the series for language. Do
I
> take it from the lack of comments that they left in Londo's "bastard
G'Kar"
> in MotFL?
Yes, and IIRC Londo said it twice.
Mac
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
except for that Narn C&C Transport Teapot.
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: "Midnight on the Firing Line" What's the verdict?
> It looks right to me.
>
>
lisa_c...@my-deja.com
"Aubrey W. Adkins" <xazq...@home.com> wrote:
> I did a comparison using my SVHS recording from TNT and the PIP
function
> on my tv. The widescreen is indeed that. Even the CGI looks alright
even
> though it is cropped. If WB would put this version on DVD, I don't
think
> anyone would have much to gripe about.
> Aubrey
>
> Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >
> > jms
> >
> > (jms...@aol.com)
> > B5 Official Fan Club at:
> > http://www.thestation.com
> > (all message content (c) 2000 by
> > synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> > to reprint specifically denied to
> > SFX Magazine)
>
>
I don't know much about the "technical details" of widescreen, but
having seen The Gathering and MOTFL, I think they both look great.
Lisa Coulter
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aubrey W. Adkins
Herranen Henrik wrote:(Sniopped)
>
> Sigh. Perhaps making effects on video for Babylon 5 was a bad idea
> after all. For classics like The Prisoner they could always go back to
> original film and remaster it so that PAL DVDs of the 60s series look
> better than NTSC LDs of Babylon 5.
>
> - Henrik
>
> --
> You know you've been watching Babylon 5 too much when...
> you're playing Battleship and you grin knowingly whenever someone calls B-5.
If they had done it on film, the show would never have been made. JMS did it on the
budget he had. Film would probably have tripled the FX costs.
Aubrey
B5 Fan
with widescreen live action, I would prefer they showed it with both. Now when
I watch an episode I get a bit distraught thinking about all the stuff on the
screen that I would be seeing if it wasn't cropped. Although that isn't likely
to be a problem with most viewers.
The main reason I brought up the whole cropped issue is because if you go back
and look at MOTF you'll see at least a few scenes near the beginning where you
can see the tops of people's hair being cut out of frame slightly. This was
unsettlingly reminiscent of the Gathering's fake-widescreen job.
Something else that didn't help my visual perception of the episode, is that my
Digital Cable seems to think it's funny to run huge gobs of static on the SciFi
Channel come noon time on through the night. This, more than anything else, is
the reason why I've decided to get Satellite. Hopefully now I won't have the
picture cut out just in time for my favorite show, Babylon 5...
Pål Are Nordal
>
> I thought that B5 was shot on film, then converted to hi-res digital video on
> an Avid editing system. It would seem that this digital 24fps master would be
> the "definitive source" of the finished episode.
As I understand it, the AVID version is low quality and only used for
editing. The AVID then produces a data file containing all the
timecodes, which is sent to a film processing facility along with the
footage for automatic assembly.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Jms at B5
>editing. The AVID then produces a data file containing all the
>timecodes, which is sent to a film processing facility along with the
>footage for automatic assembly.
That's correct. My suspicion is that when they did the auto-assembly for the
PAL wide versions, the computer got a timecode wrong and glitched the "teacup"
sequence.
Shaz
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000928202831...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> >As I understand it, the AVID version is low quality and only used for
> >editing. The AVID then produces a data file containing all the
> >timecodes, which is sent to a film processing facility along with the
> >footage for automatic assembly.
>
> That's correct. My suspicion is that when they did the auto-assembly for
the
> PAL wide versions, the computer got a timecode wrong and glitched the
"teacup"
> sequence.
>
> jms
Um, something's just occurred to me. Given what's happening to the credits
on the FRONT of the episodes already, the credits for Sleeping in Light will
be practically useless from the perspective of actually SEEING anyone. Is
there anything that can be done to stop that? Could just *those* credits be
left as they were?
Shaz <who can't see them, being in the UK, but would like to know that
beautiful touch wasn't entirely wrecked>
John Yuen
SFC feed.
Regards
John Yuen
Jms at B5 wrote:
> I'm wondering if the artifacting, which I noticed primariliy at the fade-outs,
> is a function of going from the PAL wide masters to NTSC....
>
John W. Kennedy
On our feed (CableVision, Morris County, NJ, rebuild section), we had
what looked like an assembly error, where, as Sinclair and two other
Star Furies were finding the raider C&C ship, the visual (only the
visual) went to Londo's urn, then back for about a second to space,
for the end of the sequence, and then, with the audio, back to the urn.
--
As a Christian, I wish to register both my disgust at George W. Bush's
attempt to exploit the name of my Lord and my God for its brand value,
and my horror at the fact that a major candidate should be so deeply
illiterate as to call Him a "political philosopher" in the first place.
Mikko Löppönen
"Aubrey W. Adkins"
> If they had done it on film, the show would never have been made. JMS did
it on the
> budget he had. Film would probably have tripled the FX costs.
> Aubrey
But you could've rendered the effects in 24 frames per sec as in the late
fifth season. This would've helped a lot.
-ml-
John W. Kennedy
> after all. For classics like The Prisoner they could always go back to
> original film and remaster it so that PAL DVDs of the 60s series look
> better than NTSC LDs of Babylon 5.
That's OK. They can (with money) remaster CGI, too. The 3-D
"underlying reality" of the CGI, which is what the artists
actually created and store in the computers, is not limited to any
particular resolution, and can be rendered (converted into 2-D
perspective images) over again. I expect they'll have to do that for
HDTV anyway.
Trent Piepho
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>As I understand it, the AVID version is low quality and only used for
>>editing. The AVID then produces a data file containing all the
>>timecodes, which is sent to a film processing facility along with the
>>footage for automatic assembly.
Ok, so the 4:3 NTSC masters were made directly from film, and the 16:9 PAL
masters were made from the same film, but the 19:6 NTSC on sci-fi was made
from the PAL video.
>That's correct. My suspicion is that when they did the auto-assembly for the
>PAL wide versions, the computer got a timecode wrong and glitched the "teacup"
>sequence.
Speaking of the the space teapot, I put short clips of both versions on my
web page, http://www.speakeasy.net/~xyzzy/
I noticed that the 16:9 version has the top and bottom cropped in live
action sequences. If you look at Sinclair's helmet in the star fury in the
clip, you can see a gizmo above it in the 4:3 version. In the 19:6 his helmet
reaches the top of the frame. The 16:9 does show some extra cockpit on
the sides that the 4:3 doesn't.
Mac Breck
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
The "they" being whom, Warner Brothers? Did Sci-Fi, for the lack of a
better term, "rent" a product (e.g. a broadcast quality tape?) from Warner
Brothers, and Warner Brothers assembled the product incorrectly? After
auto-assembly, it would seem like it'd be a good idea to have some QC person
check it out.
I wonder if anybody is going to fix this episode for future airings.
Mac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: "Midnight on the Firing Line" What's the verdict?
> >As I understand it, the AVID version is low quality and only used for
> >editing. The AVID then produces a data file containing all the
> >timecodes, which is sent to a film processing facility along with the
> >footage for automatic assembly.
>
> That's correct. My suspicion is that when they did the auto-assembly for
the
> PAL wide versions, the computer got a timecode wrong and glitched the
"teacup"
> sequence.
>
Aubrey W. Adkins
"Mikko Löppönen" wrote:
No arguement on that point. However, if the Fx costs had been triple for film,
vice what they were in the first place, the show would never have been made,
and this discussion would be moot.
Aubrey
Shaz
"Trent Piepho" <xy...@grace.speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:8r1nbk$34m$1...@grace.speakeasy.org...
> >>editing. The AVID then produces a data file containing all the
> >>timecodes, which is sent to a film processing facility along with the
> >>footage for automatic assembly.
>
> masters were made from the same film, but the 19:6 NTSC on sci-fi was made
> from the PAL video.
>
the
> >PAL wide versions, the computer got a timecode wrong and glitched the
"teacup"
> >sequence.
>
> web page, http://www.speakeasy.net/~xyzzy/
<sniff> I tried playing this on QuickTime, Windows Media Player and my ATI
All In Wonder Pro tv screen. The last one could get sound, the others
couldn't read it at all. I want to SEE this! PLEASE can you put it in a
format other systems can read???
Shaz
Mark D. McKean
xy...@grace.speakeasy.org (Trent Piepho) wrote:
> I noticed that the 16:9 version has the top and bottom cropped in
> live action sequences. If you look at Sinclair's helmet in the star
> fury in the clip, you can see a gizmo above it in the 4:3 version.
> In the 19:6 his helmet reaches the top of the frame. The 16:9 does
> show some extra cockpit on the sides that the 4:3 doesn't.
This is because B5 was filmed in Super35, not theatrical widescreen. A
very good explanation was given on this newsgroup back in July by
Joseph DeMartino in message-id
<4hvb5.2479$tI4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>. If you can't
find the article on your server (it's probably expired by now) or on
DejaNews, I can email you the full text (I saved it...it's more than
good enough). Here's the most relevant portion to this issue:
>> With Super35 *all* released versions of the film are "cropped." The
>> entire original frame is never seen anywhere. A widescreen frame
>> (either 1.85:1 or more typically 2.35:1) is extracted by eliminating
>> either bits of the top and bottom or *only* cropping the bottom.
>> (This is called the "common topline" method and is Cameron's
>> preference.) For 2.35:1 releases the extracted frame is usually
>> anamorphically printed onto 35mm stock and projected with correcting
>> lenses. The 1.33:1 frame is similarly extracted, this time trimming
>> the sides and using the entire height of the image. ("Titanic" was
>> filmed this way, as were "Terminator 2" and "Apollo 13" If you have
>> a chance to compare the widescreen and 4:3 versions of these films,
>> you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.)
So the original broadcast had the full height, but lost footage off the
sides. The widescreen has the full width, but loses footage off the top
or bottom. Since JMS has stated that shots were framed with both in
mind, it'll be rare that you miss anything significant in the cropping.
RGesty
And so it begins.............