Attn JMS: ANFAW Pan and Scan a simple error?
jpf...@att.net
I didn't watch or tape this episode, but apparently it was panned and
scanned so that the text was always shown but then moved into a better
position when there was no text. This would have to be deliberately
done, and whomever is responsible chose to keep their mouth(s) shut
regarding this.
It may not be the sci-fi channels fault, but not checking the remaing
seasons because season 1 was OK wasn't very smart. It's called taking
shortcuts and not being thorough in ensuring that what gets shown to the
audience is what you expected. This includes video and sound. Yeah it
might be time consuming, but in most industries it's a necessity to be
thorough. Otherwise you end up having to recall your tires or your
swearing barney doll or forever be known as the network that interrupted
the end of a great football game to show "Heidi" at it's regularly
scheduled time.
My criticisms have not been aired to the sci-fi channel because I'm glad
they've picked up the show and given it a good time slot.. I also think
it's morally wrong for them to continue to air the show as a "widescreen
exclusive" until this is fixed.
I think that everyone is a little too quick to pass the blame, when a
thorough check by the seller(WB) or the (sellee) or by having someone
that knows the show (fiona?) oversee the transfer. I think those three
parties as well as the subcontractor need to take some responsibility
here.
Sincerely,
Jon Frain
Jms at B5
>scanned so that the text was always shown but then moved into a better
>position when there was no text. This would have to be deliberately
>done, and whomever is responsible chose to keep their mouth(s) shut
>regarding this.
First, understand that you're dealing with different arms of the same octopus.
One arm selects which versions go into the machine. Down the road, a week or a
month later, somebody else loads those transfers and is told to make sure the
things are letterboxed. As it goes through that process, that person notes
that some elements are below frame...so they pan and scan. They do what
they're told with what they have.
>It may not be the sci-fi channels fault, but not checking the remaing
>seasons because season 1 was OK wasn't very smart.
It is, however, pretty standard.
>I think that everyone is a little too quick to pass the blame, when a
>thorough check by the seller(WB) or the (sellee) or by having someone
>that knows the show (fiona?) oversee the transfer. I think those three
>parties as well as the subcontractor need to take some responsibility
>here.
Fiona has nothing to do with video transfers. Has never HAD anything to do with
video transfers. So knock that one out of your list right off the bat.
Should WB have checked? Yes. I imagine SFC did check, and found them correct
initially. They had no more reason to check the rest than I would've had.
And WB is currently fixing the situation. They say that (barring unforeseen
events) they should have the transfers in place in time for S4 airings, and
right thereafter in subsequent runs, and at my request they are going to pay
particular attention to the audio elements.
>I think that everyone is a little too quick to pass the blame
And there are always those a little too quick to *assign* blame to those who
have nothing to do with the problem. See above.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
cm
Will the "corrected" shows be shown on rerun?
And, if the crew is noticing some elements fall below the frame, does
this mean the show in question is "not" letterbox? I mean, letterbox
shouldn't need ANY pan and scan, yes?
cm
Jms at B5
Yes, once they have the proper versions, those will be the ones rerun.
>And, if the crew is noticing some elements fall below the frame, does
>this mean the show in question is "not" letterbox? I mean, letterbox
>shouldn't need ANY pan and scan, yes?
>
Let me try this one more time. They loaded up THE WRONG VERSIONS FOR THE
TRANSFERS. In other words, NOT the letterboxed versions. That's why the
transfers were screwed up in the first place.
Mark D. McKean
> Yes, once they have the proper versions, those will be the ones rerun.
Related question: Is SFC guaranteeing a complete second run-through? And
will it be in the same time slot?
I ask because if they're not going to have the corrected versions ready
until S4, I might as well stop retaping until the second run-through.
Watching the messed-up S2 eps has been hard enough; watching messed-up
S3 eps will be absolute torture.
--
Mark D. McKean - The Quantum Panda - qpa...@quantumpanda.com
Mac Breck
From: "Mark D. McKean" <qpa...@quantumpanda.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Attn JMS: ANFAW Pan and Scan a simple error?
> Watching the messed-up S2 eps has been hard enough; watching
> messed-up S3 eps will be absolute torture.
I second that, in spades!
Mac
jpf...@att.net
that someone who knows the show, like fiona, SHOULD have oversaw the transfers.
For someone that cares about the fans, and has reason to distrust a network to do
the job right, I'm surprised something like that wasn't done.
Saying that such and such a practice is standard, is a complete non-answer.
"Sorry sir, it's standard practice that blacks sit on the back of this bus."
"We're killing these women and children because it's common practice to follow our
commanding officers orders."
"It's common practice to count votes by machine, hand recounts are prone to
mischief."
And I'm curious to hear your opinion on the sci-fi channel promoting the show as
"letterboxed" now that they know it's not.
I know I'm coming across as a real ass, but I feel pretty damn strongly about this
particular matter. And I certainly hope someone who cares about the show will help
with the transfers to DVD when that time comes.
Sincerely,
Jon Frain
Jms at B5
Yes, you are.
>but I feel pretty damn strongly about this
>particular matter.
I would suggest that you can not care about this any more strongly than I do.
>To elaborate, I wasn't saying that fiona did supervise the transfers. i was
>saying
>that someone who knows the show, like fiona, SHOULD have oversaw the
>transfers.
>For someone that cares about the fans, and has reason to distrust a network
>to do
>the job right, I'm surprised something like that wasn't done.
Can I ask you a question? What color is the sky in the world where you live?
I cannot send someone, nor can I, just barge into a major studio's technical
lab and demand to oversee this process. First off, I didn't know WHEN it was
being done, nobody told me, because they never tell ANYbody.
Second, again, if you think I or anyone can just go barging in there and
oversee this thing on my say-so...you're from Mars. It doesn't work that way.
It's got nothing to do with caring about a show or not caring about a show,
it's got everything to do with what you can and can't do when it comes to
marching into somebody's office in a multi-billion dollar corporation and
telling them their job when (at that point) there had not been any reason shown
to merit this. Saying "I'm here because you guys are just such fuckups that I
*know* you're going to mess this up" would serve only to have security
summoned.
I'm sorry, but neither I nor anyone else involved with Babylonian Prods. can be
held responsible for your erroneous view of how things should be done, which do
not touch reality at any two contiguous points.
Joseph DeMartino
Saying that such and such a practice is standard, is a complete non-answer.
"Sorry sir, it's standard practice that blacks sit on the back of this bus."
"We're killing these women and children because it's common practice to
follow our commanding officers orders."
"It's common practice to count votes by machine, hand recounts are prone to
mischief."
It is also common practice for people to use absurdly exaggerated examples
or metaphors to "refute" absolutely reasonable statements. (Note the
frequent use of the word "Fascist" to describe anyone whom the speaker
doesn't like. Makes me wonder what people who faced the *real* fascists
think when they hear this sort of thing.)
I don't think the standard way of doing things in the TV and movie industry,
or JMS's reference to them, really invites comparisons to Jim Crow, or any
of the various "ethnic cleasners" of the past century. I think such
comparisons are incredibly offensive and out of place here.
BTW - hand counts *are* prone to mischief. <g> The nice thing about
machines counts is that, while they are as prone to error as anything else
created by man, they have no political bias. Statistically their errors
should be spread among all candidates equally. Hand recounts, especially as
performed under the contstantly changing rules and standards here in
Florida, are strongly influenced by the bias of the counters.
Regards,
Joe
Mac Breck
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Attn JMS: ANFAW Pan and Scan a simple error?
Now THAT, I can believe, especially the "First off, I didn't know WHEN it
was
being done, nobody told me, because they never tell ANYbody." part!
If WB was really interested in the quality of the product, really cared
about how it looked, they would have called in somebody from the show,
preferably you, to oversee things or at least check the product before it
went out. However, it appears that they didn't. Why? They'd have had to
pay you. It appears that the only thing they care about is the $, and will
put in only the bare minimum amount of effort and attention to detail they
think they can get away with, and hope nobody notices any problems.
Mac
Claudia Mastroianni
: If WB was really interested in the quality of the product, really cared
: about how it looked, they would have called in somebody from the show,
: preferably you, to oversee things or at least check the product before it
: went out. However, it appears that they didn't. Why? They'd have had to
: pay you. It appears that the only thing they care about is the $, and will
: put in only the bare minimum amount of effort and attention to detail they
: think they can get away with, and hope nobody notices any problems.
It's also just not standard practice. Joe is far more interested in how
the reruns look than I imagine 95% of TV producers ever are. It's not
part of how they do business. It's not conspiracy that WB *didn't*
do this, it would have been startling if they *had*.
... You realize, of course, that the only hope of a good DVD release is if
they shop the job out to someone else.
*dreams of Criterion edition Babylon 5*
Claudia
--
I will not turn him into an anecdote, it was an experience. How do we
hold onto the experience? -- Six Degrees of Separation
Mac Breck
news:8vu9u3$i1s$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> : If WB was really interested in the quality of the product, really cared
> : about how it looked, they would have called in somebody from the show,
> : preferably you, to oversee things or at least check the product before
it
> : went out. However, it appears that they didn't. Why? They'd have had
to
> : pay you. It appears that the only thing they care about is the $, and
will
> : put in only the bare minimum amount of effort and attention to detail
they
> : think they can get away with, and hope nobody notices any problems.
>
> It's also just not standard practice.
So I guess Quality Control/Quality Assurance is dead, or is a 60% defect
rate acceptable (Season's 2, 3, and 4 are affected, not even counting the
Season 1 problems)?
> Joe is far more interested in how
> the reruns look than I imagine 95% of TV producers ever are. It's not
> part of how they do business.
What? They're not concerned how their product looks? I guess they could
put their name on a pile of crap and it wouldn't bother them in the least?
If my name's on something, I'd sure want it to be as high quality as
possible, otherwise it would reflect badly on me.
> It's not conspiracy that WB *didn't*
> do this, it would have been startling if they *had*.
>
> ... You realize, of course, that the only hope of a good DVD release is if
> they shop the job out to someone else.
>
> *dreams of Criterion edition Babylon 5*
Then we have no hope at all.
Mac
Kerry Casey
>
> ... You realize, of course, that the only hope of a good DVD release is if
> they shop the job out to someone else.
>
> *dreams of Criterion edition Babylon 5*
>
I nearly dropped my morning coffee and started hyperventilating. A PERFECT
solution that probably won't happen (though, repeat as a mantra, Faith
Manages, Faith Manages, Faith Manages.....)
The Buffy Season 1 Box Set is great - it has a commentary track by Joss
Whedon on the first two episodes that are among some of the best I have
heard - funny, interesting and informative. FOX have done a great job with
the X Files and Buffy, let's hope WB does as well for B5
Kerry
--
Kerry Casey
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
E-mail kca...@bom.gov.au
Robert Joesting
>BTW - hand counts *are* prone to mischief. <g>
As are machine counts, ballot design, absentee
ballots, and most everything else in an election.
> The nice thing about
>machines counts is that, while they are as prone to error as anything else
>created by man, they have no political bias. Statistically their errors
>should be spread among all candidates equally.
Not always true. A good exception would be a
punch card ballot system where the top hole will
almost always punch cleanly but those for candidates
further down on the ballot will more likely not have
the chad complete removed or possibly only dimpled.
>Hand recounts, especially as
>performed under the contstantly changing rules and standards here in
>Florida, are strongly influenced by the bias of the counters.
If you had no people observing or double checking
this would be true. It is almost always very easy
to see who a voter intended to vote for on ballots
that the machine can't read because no chad is
completely removed. Neither human nor machine can
be trusted to guess the intent when two were voted
for. We can can guess what was probably meant but
that is not enough.
Bob Joesting <valen (at) psicorps (dot) com>
Joseph DeMartino
voted for. We can can guess what was probably meant but that is not
enough."
Agreed. Unfortunately that is exactly what the canvassing boards *were*
doing - guessing the intent of the voter. What no one seems able to accept
is that some people may simply not have voted for anyone for President.
Given that this was virtually a dead-even race, I don't find it surprising
that some people could not make up their minds and voted only in the
state-wide races. There were a number of local races where I didn't vote
because I couldn't chose between the candidates. The 10,000 votes that
Senator Lieberman and others have said were "never counted" were in fact
machine-counted ballots on which no vote for President was registered.
Given the two candidates we had to pick from, I find this number
suspiciously *low.* <g>
The canvassing boards also never seems to have heard of the concept of
ballot-splitting. In both Dade and Broward (I'm not sure about Palm Beach)
the boards not only made the assumption that every voter "intended" to vote
for President, they also assumed that people who mostly (or only) voted for
Democrats "intended" to vote for Gore while those who mostly voted for
Republicans "intended" to vote for Bush. If they had done that with my
ballot (which I'm sure they didn't since I *followed the printed
instructions* and checked the front and back of my ballot to make sure all
holes were correctly punched before I left the voting booth) they would have
been very confused because I voted for different parties in different races.
And managed to do this despite the "confusing" butterfly ballot used in Palm
Beach County. (Which any intelligent 8 year old should have been able to
fill out correctly.)
Apparenlty they had The Amazing Kreskin on the panel, because I don't see
any other way of taking a "dimpled" or completely unmarked ballot (and they
were counting any crease, mark or discoloration as a dimple) and divining
the intent of the voter from it. And observers be damned - in all cases the
canvassing board had the final decision. And the canvassing boards in the
affected counties were either entirely of one party or had a voting majority
of one party. It was hilarious watching the live coverage of the Broward
count. Vote after vote the lone Republican was examining the ballots with a
magnifying glass and declaring it impossible to decide who the voter's
intent. A Democrat would then glance at the ballot and declare it a clear
vote for Gore. The chairman would concur and the vote went into the Gore
pile. Now some or all of these may, in fact, have been clear votes for
Gore, and the Republican may have been up to mischief. But either way this
is clearly a biased and imperfect system.
It seems to me that there are two issues here: 1) Personal responsibility.
If you care enough about the country to vote you should care enough to read
and follow the instructions, and exercise due caution in completing your
ballot. If you still get it wrong, you have to accept the consequences of
your folly. If I don't check my lottery ticket before leaving the place
where I buy it and miss winning the big jackpot because of a machine error I
can't sue the State Department of the Lottery. 2) The system as it stands.
It is, to say the least, imperfect. But it has *always* been imperfect.
The flaws we are seeing in the Florida system have existed for years, and
not just in Florida. If you did a hand recount in every election district
in the country you'd find similar problems in virtually all of them. But
this is the system we have, and it is the one every election has been
conducted under, and it has been accepted by all parties - up until now.
The game was played under these rules. The result, according to those
rules, should stand. Should we fix this mess before the *next* election?
Absolutely. But barring a pattern of deliberate vote fraud or manipulation,
which simply does not exist in this case, the results as certified should be
accepted.
Somebody in Washington might think about using some of that budget surplus
to buy a bunch of cheap computers to put into every voting booth in the
country. A simple touch-screen system with pictures of the candidates in
addition to their names, and an "are you sure this is what you want to do?"
message after the voter makes a selection for each office, would greatly
reduce these problems. As an added bonus we would get *accurate* returns
almost as soon as the voting ended in each location. (Yes, I know computers
are also subject to fraud and abuse, but probably less so than the current
system. I can easily think of a half-dozen security measures that could be
taken that would make it nearly impossible to mess around with the vote
barring a truly gigantic conspiracy involving too many people from all
political parties to be workable. <g>)
Regards,
Joe
Mac Breck
From: "Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Attn JMS: ANFAW Pan and Scan a simple error?
> On 27 Nov 2000 17:03:52 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So I guess Quality Control/Quality Assurance is dead, or is a 60% defect
> >rate acceptable (Season's 2, 3, and 4 are affected, not even counting
the
> >Season 1 problems)?
>
> I've long been involved in this sort of stuff professionally. and
> while most people in the business take a fairly blase attitude to
> technical quality (though producing stuff of the level we take for
> granted takes a fair amount of it), the larger facilities typically
> have a fair amount of QC in place. A client won't generally fuss over
> a few scratches or a few dB of lost headroom, but try sending a spot
> to the wrong station or leaving off the audio if you want to see
> fireworks.
>
> Even so, mistakes can happen: work orders can be illegible, the
> library can send the wrong elements. This strikes me as almost a freak
> accident. The colorist who transferred the episodes undoubtedly made
> sure that he had the right episodes, and that they matched the work
> order.
I guess somebody else must have done Season 1?
> But he presumably wasn't familiar with the show, so he assumed
> they had been shot to cut stuff off.
That's one crazy assumption to make.
That a 60% error rate can happen and be undetected until the fans notice, is
scary. When the product does get made correctly, it must be pure dumb luck.
Mac
bryan klech
: That a 60% error rate can happen and be undetected until the fans notice, is
: scary. When the product does get made correctly, it must be pure dumb luck.
Except that what we're facing isn't a manufacturing error, it's a business
process error. All of the machinery worked correctly.
--
-- bryan klech
-- bkl...@goblin.punk.net Don't let the sky stop you!
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Somebody in Washington might think about using some of that budget surplus
> to buy a bunch of cheap computers to put into every voting booth in the
> country. A simple touch-screen system with pictures of the candidates in
> addition to their names, and an "are you sure this is what you want to do?"
> message after the voter makes a selection for each office, would greatly
> reduce these problems.
Or you could do it as they do hereabouts - one ballot for each party.
That ought to make judging voter intent a tad simpler.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Claudia Mastroianni
: "Claudia Mastroianni" <cma...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:8vu9u3$i1s$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> Joe is far more interested in how
:> the reruns look than I imagine 95% of TV producers ever are. It's not
:> part of how they do business.
: What? They're not concerned how their product looks? I guess they could
: put their name on a pile of crap and it wouldn't bother them in the least?
I did say the *reruns*. I honestly doubt most producers pay much attention
to what happens to later runs of their work.
Claudia
--
"I toast, therefore I am."
Mac Breck
From: "bryan klech" <bkl...@goblin.punk.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Attn JMS: ANFAW Pan and Scan a simple error?
> Mac Breck <macb...@access995.com> wrote:
> : That a 60% error rate can happen and be undetected until the fans
notice, is
> : scary. When the product does get made correctly, it must be pure dumb
luck.
>
> Except that what we're facing isn't a manufacturing error, it's a business
> process error. All of the machinery worked correctly.
It's not a "manufacturing error" in the sense of what may happen when making
a product for us consumers, true. It *is* a manufacturing error in the
choice of the source material used to make the product for the Sci-Fi
Channel, and indicates a lack of QA/QC.
Mac
ps. Did anybody else see those two momentary frame hiccups in G'Kar's
quarters after Sheridan shakes his hand and is leaving? Just wondering if
it was the tape or my cable provider.
Joseph DeMartino
them in the least?"
Er, do you ever *watch* television? Producers do this on a regular basis
and it doesn't seem to bother them at all. <g>
Regards,
Joe