More bits needed for the London gun salutes

[NY]

BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very
odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast,
Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London:
those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were
stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to
featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to
BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).

[John Williamson]

4G bandwidth problems due to base station capacity limits? I often
suffered for that while I was down there.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Roderick Stewart]

I didn't see it, but I guess it was better than the level of detail in
the surviving pictures of her first engagement. The Coronation
broadcast was recorded on film because no practical method of
recording television signals had been invented yet. To the best of my
knowledge they used the skipped field method (sometimes called "drop
frame" in old books because the meanings of the words have changed)
where only every alternate field was photographed from a CRT display
in order to get a full height picture. Thus, the 377 picture lines in
a 405 line signal have been recorded on film with a resolution of
188.5 lines.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was
flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
look old).

--
Max Demian

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 14:22:52 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

They repeated the whole thing, all 5 or 6 hours of it, some years ago
on one of the significant anniversaries. I managed to get the whole
thing on a single DVD without any quality loss because it was so poor
to begin with.

Rod.

[Liz Tuddenham]

I heard somewhere that the Rank Organisation stored the original colour
negative so badly that the colour was degraded.



--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[williamwright]

On 09/09/2022 13:18, NY wrote:

GB News had them as well. Incidentally GB News's coverage yesterday was
very good. Alistair Stewart was the supreme professional. There were
several interesting interviews, including one with Pres Trump.

Bill

[Brian Gaff]

Dunno, but some of the audio on various stations had the most appalling set
up limiters that sounded a lot like a cheap gain riding cassette recorder.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:tffbrj$11riq$1...@dont-email.me...

[Max Demian]

What, the TV to film version? Why, when the colour cine version is
available?

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On 09/09/2022 15:25, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

> Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>> I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was
>> flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
>> US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
>> which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
>> look old).
>
> I heard somewhere that the Rank Organisation stored the original colour
> negative so badly that the colour was degraded.

I've just dug out a 1h20m VHS recording of the Coronation called "A
Queen is Crowned" and the colour looks all right to me. I may play it
while we're thinking about all things royal.

--
Max Demian

[joe bloggs]

Watching the guns at Tower Bridge I got the distinct impression the camera was 'upset' by the 'shockwave' that I presume emanated from the guns themselves at the time of the actual firing. Seemed to me the bit encoder didn't quite know what to do with the video information for a very short time before settling down again. I though the Hyde Park camera picture were just simply soft. Just my opinion of course.

[NY]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:jo0qh0...@mid.individual.net...

Do they actually use 4G for camera-to-studio links sometimes, rather than
using satellite or (if available) land-line links? No wonder the pictures
were bit-starved at times. Looking at the side-on shot of the guns in Hyde
Park, they really were baaaaaaad. Every few seconds, the blades of grass and
the leaves on the trees disappeared into a featureless green mush, then they
returned (well, a little bit) before vanishing again.

When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct
for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from the
gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300
m/second. Sometimes they get it spot on and the muzzle flash and/or the
start of the puff of smoke is seen just as you hear the bang, Other times
there's a disconcerting 1/2 second (or worse) offset between the two.

[tony sayer]

In article <tffbrj$11riq$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid>
scribeth thus

The audio wasn't much cop either!..

Some of the guns were hardly audible!..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[joe bloggs]

Personally I have not heard of 4G being used for OB's etc but certainly 'bonded' 5G is used routinely. The quality is usually very good, but can of course depend somewhat on the amount of local 5G provision and on how much capacity is being used by 'other' users in the locale. LiveU is one of the more usual systems and Google is your friend if you want to find out more.

Landline and satellite is still used where it can and if felt technically appropriate to the event coverage, and sometimes even 'zoom' if really desperate (but I did not tell you that).

My 'person on the inside' tells me that the camera from Tower Bridge was provided by a pool feed so the provider is not known to them, could be ITN, could be the BBC or even Sky or GB News.

As to sound/vision delays. I can't see the crew on the ground doing anything about or even having the kit to do it (they have enough stuff to lug around). Maybe its just a question of using the camera's zoom - the 'Father Ted' cow scenario.

[joe bloggs]

Perhaps see my 'Father Ted' cow scenario in my earlier post? It could be the explanation?

[Brian Gaff]

Yes some were over loud some sounded like the mikes were two streets away.
Almost as bad as the terrible differences in the levels on local radio via
the internet

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tFkoPeIw...@bancom.co.uk...

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 17:28:19 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>>> I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was
>>> flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
>>> US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
>>> which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
>>> look old).
>>
>> They repeated the whole thing, all 5 or 6 hours of it, some years ago
>> on one of the significant anniversaries. I managed to get the whole
>> thing on a single DVD without any quality loss because it was so poor
>> to begin with.
>
>What, the TV to film version? Why, when the colour cine version is
>available?

Yes, they repeated the entire broadcast, more or less to match the
same timetable as the original occasion. A lot of it was brief shots
of the procession through the streets, or rooftop shots while waiting
for the procession to appear, accompanied by ponderous commentary. It
was an attempt to recreate a piece of broadcasting history. The
ceremony itself, as you say, had been covered by film cameras, but
that wasn't what this was about. The intent was to show what a
television viewer in 1953 would have seen, in real time.

I only remember little bits of the original occasion, but then I was
only five. Our television set had a vaguely rectangular screen with
severely rounded corners made by masking off a circular CRT with a
diameter of 12 inches. Today I have a laptop computer with a bigger
screen than that.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

On 10/09/2022 10:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 17:28:19 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was
>>>> flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
>>>> US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
>>>> which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
>>>> look old).
>>>
>>> They repeated the whole thing, all 5 or 6 hours of it, some years ago
>>> on one of the significant anniversaries. I managed to get the whole
>>> thing on a single DVD without any quality loss because it was so poor
>>> to begin with.
>>
>> What, the TV to film version? Why, when the colour cine version is
>> available?
>
> Yes, they repeated the entire broadcast, more or less to match the
> same timetable as the original occasion. A lot of it was brief shots
> of the procession through the streets, or rooftop shots while waiting
> for the procession to appear, accompanied by ponderous commentary. It
> was an attempt to recreate a piece of broadcasting history. The
> ceremony itself, as you say, had been covered by film cameras, but
> that wasn't what this was about. The intent was to show what a
> television viewer in 1953 would have seen, in real time.

I would like something similar of the 2001 WTC attack. I saw bits of the
broadcast but didn't think to record it. Like when was it clear the
towers would collapse. Documentaries don't have the same feel as they
are edited compilations.

--
Max Demian

[Liz Tuddenham]

Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> I only remember little bits of the original occasion, but then I was
> only five.

The thing I rememberd about it was the sound of the fly past and the
blood-curdling howl of those early jet engines.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 20:41:00 +0100, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct
> for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from the
> gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300
> m/second.

How would you expect them to do that, apart from moving the microphone
to where the sound is?

[NY]

"Paul Ratcliffe" <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
news:slrnthptkn...@news.pr.network...

Delay unit between sound and vision. Could just as easily be corrected
during editing in the case of a recording, or at the studio that is
receiving in the case of live pictures.

[Roderick Stewart]

You would have to delay the picture, which is more of a big deal than
delaying the sound, and you'd have to devise an unobtrusive way of
changing the delay depending on picture content if the same cameras
are to be used for other shots.

Why would you want to anyway? The sound from distant objects is out of
sync in real life, so why not portray reality as it is?

Rod.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 23:15:54 +0100, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>>> When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct
>>> for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from
>>> the
>>> gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300
>>> m/second.
>>
>> How would you expect them to do that, apart from moving the microphone
>> to where the sound is?
>
> Delay unit between sound and vision.

So every camera crew is going to carry one just on the off chance?
How do you know what the delay is going to be?
How are you going to set it up?
It's another thing to carry, and cable, and power, and another
point of failure.
In other words, it's a complete non-starter.

> Could just as easily be corrected during editing in the case of a
> recording

Exactly. Hence the time-worn phrase "We'll fix it in post(-production)",
if needed.

> or at the studio that is receiving in the case of live pictures.

Most of the above drawbacks apply, even if there was a device readily
available to do it. We don't have any. It's not a common requirement.

[williamwright]

On 14/09/2022 11:27, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> In other words, it's a complete non-starter.

I've got a car like that.

Bill