Take The Brit Awards, the first programme on ITV this year I actually
wanted to watch... Distorted sound and flickery, blurred and
unwatchable pictures. Now we know ITV always have the worst picture
quality of any terrestrial channel, hell even QVC wipes the floor with
them, in more ways than one, but this was stupid. Surely, if you're
going to make the picture and sound of a programme unwatchable, why
bother?
Sooner or later their advertisers are going to realise that ITV are
not only, not the only horse in town but are no longer even on the
track.
Rgds
Jonathan
sad and all as it is, i cant remember the last time "viewers" moved
away from a station for technical quality issues...
keith
Distorted sound? I thought the mix for most acts was of a high standard, but
I wasn't listening on professional grade monitoring equipment. Sometimes
the levels on the radio microphones used for winners was a little out
initially -- but that's presumably because it wasn't possible to preset a
level for them. But it was soon corrected. I thought James Blunt's live
performance mix was a little off (his guitar was very low in the mix,
considering the guitar's visual prominence!) but there may well have been
underlying artistic reasons for this.
I thought the camera direction and vision mixing was of a very high
standard. Everything was nicely focussed and framed well, even on the 14:9
cut-out I was watching. I also thought the 'filmic' effect suited the
programme well, making it actually look like something of an event --
standing out from the usual diet of soap operas and reality television shown
on ITV.
> Sooner or later their advertisers are going to realise that ITV are
> not only, not the only horse in town but are no longer even on the
> track.
Sooner or later, anoraks are going to realise that artistic effects are
inserted to add to the programme. To improve atmosphere, or to achieve a
certain "look". Or maybe they're not. :-(
The Brit Awards looked and sounded good from where I was watching,
especially considering the short turnaround and what seemed to be the huge
number of cameras and microphones in use. The biggest let-down was the
content. I lost count of the number of unfunny people on the podium who
tried to play the comic. :(
The thoughts of: Mr. Harris.
Well, I'm not an anorak and I thought it looked bloody awful,
specifically with regard to the judderiness introduced by the filmic
effect. For the most part, though, I thought the sound was okay.
> The biggest let-down was the
> content. I lost count of the number of unfunny people on the podium who
> tried to play the comic. :(
Now that we can agree on ;)
Exactly my thoughts too. There were some really nasty artefacts on
vertical movement visible, along with the dreadful yuckyness that the
'filmic' effect normally introduces.
>> The biggest let-down was the content. I lost count of the number of
>> unfunny people on the podium who tried to play the comic. :(
>
>
> Now that we can agree on ;)
Seconded.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
>Distorted sound? I thought the mix for most acts was of a high standard, but
>I wasn't listening on professional grade monitoring equipment. Sometimes
>the levels on the radio microphones used for winners was a little out
>initially -- but that's presumably because it wasn't possible to preset a
>level for them. But it was soon corrected. I thought James Blunt's live
>performance mix was a little off (his guitar was very low in the mix,
>considering the guitar's visual prominence!) but there may well have been
>underlying artistic reasons for this.
Well I posted that before it'd finished airing but I stand by what I
wrote. As for the audio mix, no, there were no noticeable problems
with it (the actual mix) as far as I could tell and the whole
performance seemed to be of high quality, before it was televised. But
that's the point, the problem was with the mush of audio as broadcast.
>I thought the camera direction and vision mixing was of a very high
>standard. Everything was nicely focussed and framed well, even on the 14:9
14:9 cutout, how can you seriously judge video quality when a large
chunk (both picture and resolution) is missing? As for focus, well
it's impossible to tell from the broadcast, ITV seem to have
consistently poor picture quality compared to other channels, this
coupled with the obvious low bandwidth (I was watching on DSAT) and
many stage effects, reduced the picture to a blurred mush of blocks
most of the time. I'm not being over picky here, it was commented on,
unprompted, by younger non-technical members of the household.
>cut-out I was watching. I also thought the 'filmic' effect suited the
>programme well, making it actually look like something of an event --
>standing out from the usual diet of soap operas and reality television shown
>on ITV.
This I don't get. Maybe it works on old CRT sets or maybe ITV just
assume that their viewers are chavs watching on 51cm Lidl specials,
but even for a deliberate effect this looked very bad. It really
looked like half the frames had been just thrown away (no kind of
digital resampling etc) and was unwatchable. Literally, I felt sick
watching it due to the flicker.
>Sooner or later, anoraks are going to realise that artistic effects are
>inserted to add to the programme. To improve atmosphere, or to achieve a
>certain "look". Or maybe they're not. :-(
The sad thing is, as you say, it appeared to be quite a high quality
production, until it reached the broadcast chain. I suspect the people
responsible never really watch off-air and don't appreciate how poor
these things look once they've been through multiple systems, links
etc. As for an artistic effect, that's fine, they can put fake film
damage on, mono telephonic sound and make the picture black and white
for all I care, but why, if they've gone to all the trouble of a
high-end production, deliberately drive away viewers?
FWIW, Hi-definition will be here in a few months and is really going
to sort the amateurs from the pros. Despite all their failings, the
BBC, Sky, Channel 4 and even five currently wipe the floor with ITV on
a technical level. If ITV want to be the low budget, low brow channel
they appear to be aiming at, fine. It's just that at the current rate
in 5 years, they'll be competing for advertising with "Reality TV" and
Hallmark. A downward spiral. If they can't get the basics of standard
definition right after all these years (and let's face it, even just
10 years ago they used to be dam good at it) they're doomed in the
coming large screen, HD world.
>The Brit Awards looked and sounded good from where I was watching,
>especially considering the short turnaround and what seemed to be the huge
With respect, you've already stated you watched on 14:9 centre cut. I
don't see how this can be regarded as a suitable format for review.
>number of cameras and microphones in use. The biggest let-down was the
>content. I lost count of the number of unfunny people on the podium who
>tried to play the comic. :(
No problem with what I heard of the content (I had it on in the
background, I really couldn't sit down and concentrate on it). As I
say, it's the actual broadcast that was poor.
Rgds
Jonathan
Yes, I noticed a sort of vertical echoing in many fast moving shots. I
especially noticed it in Kanye West's performance.
I did wonder whether the limitations of digital broadcast may have
affected things adversely, too.
As it doesn't go out live and if they want a filmic effect, why don't
they just shoot it on film? Proper film converted to video looks so much
better than 'filmised' video.
You *any* idea of the cost of shooting this sort of event on film?
--
*Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you? *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Er, FWIW, the Brits was aquired HD!! Philips/Grass Valley/Thomson/BTS
LDK-6000 Worldcams in 1080psf25 mode.
> In article <43f58b1d$0$82667$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
> Rich Hanson <nos...@plompy.co.uk> wrote:
> > As it doesn't go out live and if they want a filmic effect, why don't
> > they just shoot it on film? Proper film converted to video looks so much
> > better than 'filmised' video.
>
> You *any* idea of the cost of shooting this sort of event on film?
Plus the turnround time needed to process the film, copy the many rolls
from every camera to video, sync it all up, edit it perhaps via a vision
mixer "as live" plus the subsequent tweaks, then run the finished
product through a grader.
"Filmic" is sometimes justified, but from what I saw of the show this
wasn't one of those occasions.
--
Peter
Perhaps there's a subconcious effect going on when the brain has to work
harder because of poorer quality. The viewer then gets tired but doesn't
quite understand why, and next time decides to give the show a miss.
This all adds up to the audience moving away from a station for
technical quality issues, but if you asked them they'd claim the
programmes weren't very good.
As a result, the bean counters can claim technical issues don't carry
any weight, and they therefore ignore them or cut corners (eg, reduced
bit rates).
--
Peter
Actually I've seen studies done a couple of times which showed that,
although the general public isn't consciously aware of most sound and
picture problems, SUB consciously they tend to prefer better quality when
offered. I did a Google and couldn't find the old papers, but they do
exist.
Bob
Well, no... which is why I phrased it as a question!!
> Actually I've seen studies done a couple of times which showed that,
> although the general public isn't consciously aware of most sound and
> picture problems, SUB consciously they tend to prefer better quality
> when offered.
But you ask those punters why they like programme X or dislike programme
Y and they'll wibble about the content or style *not* the techincal side
as, as you point out, they aren't conciously aware of that. So when
surveys for the bean counters are done poor technical quality doesn't
even register on the scale, therefore technical quality is not an issue
for the punters.
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
> Bob
>
>
>
The former if anything - the latter seems very improbable :)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TQ - The Voice Of insanity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Plus the turnround time needed to process the film, copy the many rolls
> from every camera to video, sync it all up, edit it perhaps via a vision
> mixer "as live" plus the subsequent tweaks, then run the finished
> product through a grader.
Yup. On a an event such as this most of the cameras would have to roll all
the time.
> "Filmic" is sometimes justified, but from what I saw of the show this
> wasn't one of those occasions.
I've never, ever, ever, ever, known it to be justified. It simply looks
shite and always will do. If you want a film look shoot on film.
--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *
>As it doesn't go out live and if they want a filmic effect, why don't
>they just shoot it on film? Proper film converted to video looks so much
>better than 'filmised' video.
..or even progressive HD. Then they could repeat it in 6 months time!
Rgds
Jonathan
IIRR there were some US shows shot on 16mm 24fps film, telecined to NTSC
with 3:2 pulldown for post-production, then standards-converted to PAL
for export.
--
Richard Lamont
<ric...@lamont.me.uk>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5096714C
Fingerprint: F838 740C 76B4 6EC6 9ECC 1C4D A4DE 3322 5096 714C
> I'd tend to go a long that theory, I remember when Dallas used pristine 35
> mm film, and then changed to crap 525 videotape, at that time I was a TV
> field service engineer, and many customers complained of the poor-quality,
> especially the blurry image on moving objects. It may have been coincidence,
> but IMO the popularity of the show seemed to go down hill rapidly from that
> time on.
Dallas initially was supplied to the Beeb on 35mm film. Suddenly, I
can't remember what changed, either it was edited electronically, this
would have required the rushes to be TK'd to NTSC video (with
resulting 3:2 pulldown) and/or the Americans insisted on shipping the
show to the Beeb on video tape, possibly doing their conversion to PAL
? In either case we ended up seeing it TK'd and standards converted. I
think the Beeb later insisted on having an NTSC video tape version
shipped, so at least they could perform the NTSC-PAL conversion
'properly' :-).
> "Filmic" is sometimes justified, but from what I saw of the show this
> wasn't one of those occasions.
Please name specific programmes where you consider it's OK ?
IIRC, Dallas was shot on film (35mm), even after we started buying it on
tape. I suspect the BBC wouldn't pay for the cost of the prints.
Regards,
Simonm.
--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/
I still don't think you can beat a properly graded 35mm print (OK, IMAX
and standard 70mm, BYKWIM). The one thing it doesn't have that HDTV will
(inevitably) offer us is motion artefacts.
Regards,
Simonm. (who likes strobing waggon wheels!)
No, it changed to electronic cameras. The difference was blindingly
obvious.
--
*The statement below is true.
> I still don't think you can beat a properly graded 35mm print (OK, IMAX
> and standard 70mm, BYKWIM). The one thing it doesn't have that HDTV will
> (inevitably) offer us is motion artefacts.
Trouble is 35mm is simply too expensive for UK productions. Very very few
UK made TV progs have used it. Super 16 is more common - but even that is
dying out as electronic cameras get better. Until their now better
pictures are ruined by 'film look'.
I've never actually met anyone who likes it. Must just be a few TV
executives who don't watch TV anyway as it's beneath them.
--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?
I think you'll find that Simon/Spamtrap is correct. It was shot on film
right up until the end but in the latter part of the 13 year run the film
was transferred to tape for editing and post production.
Dallas was made between 1978 and 1991. Cameras with the dreaded "filmic
look" option were only just appearing in the early 1990s.
Bob
I can understand why some programmes might look better with the transfer
charactersitics (gamma) modified so video looks more like film. But why do
they also feel the need to replicate the reduction in temporal resolution
(ie the increase the flicker) by replacing 50 half-resolution pictures by 25
full-resolution pictures? I've never understood that. Does jerky motion
(especially when the camera is panning) look more like real life? Course it
doesn't!
When programmes are recorded filmicly, does the camera still scan interlaced
video, with the reduction in temporal resolution carried out in
post-production, or are the cameras switched to scan progressively but
output interlaced? I think part of the problem is that halving the temporal
resolution of interlaced video inevitably involves some form of averaging of
two fields, resulting in a reduction in vertical resolution, whereas
progressive scanning into a frame store and then reading out interlaced
preserves the original vertical resolution.
Nowadays with CCDs it must be dead easy to switch between interlaced and
progressive scanning in the camera: just change the counter that reads lines
so it generates addresses 1, 2, 3, 4 rather than 1, 3, 5, 7... 2, 4, 6, 8,
and then save the complete frame in a frame store (memory is dirt-cheap
these days) and read out of that in interlaced order.
Sorry, but don't believe it. The poorer contrast range of older electronic
cameras is an instant giveaway. Plus the different gamma. Transferring
film to tape for post caused nothing like the same degradation - after all
by that time very few films were transmitted from a telecine.
--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?
It's down to lack of imagination on the part of the execs. IIRC, going
back 20 years or so, several proposals were made to shoot on 35 with a
cut for theatre release ahead of a series (Jim G., were you involved in
anything like this?). At the time, Ealing had aged but still functional
35mm cameras that could have been pressed into service, and the larger
dubbing theatres were all dual gauge (although this doesn't much matter
really, as long as the neg. is 35mm). It may have been contracts that
scuppered the idea - too difficult to negotiate or whatever.
It still strikes me as crazy that Morse (and now 'Lewis') weren't shot
on 35, at least for some 'specials'. ISTR they did it for the Sweeney...
Regards,
Simonm.
>I think you'll find that Simon/Spamtrap is correct. It was shot on film
>right up until the end but in the latter part of the 13 year run the film
>was transferred to tape for editing and post production.
There were complaints to Points Of View at the time, also.
Was never a big Dallas fan, but I can imagine a straight 60:50
conversion of analogue video, sourced from 3:2 pulldown from 24fps
film would not have looked too excellent, especially since (I think
I'm right in saying) there was no DEFT-type process available at the
time.
>Sorry, but don't believe it. The poorer contrast range of older electronic
>cameras is an instant giveaway. Plus the different gamma. Transferring
>film to tape for post caused nothing like the same degradation - after all
>by that time very few films were transmitted from a telecine.
But tape editing of film-shot material was pretty common at the time.
You would have noticed instantly if they'd suddenly started making
stuff like Dallas and LA Law on electronic video cameras - for a start
it would have LOOKED like video. (They didn't do "filmlooking" back in
those days, right?)
Rewind a few years to the feature film "A girl on a motorcycle". When the
film was reviewed it was more revealing than intended in one sequence. The
scene came to TVC, turned into video, used special efffects to hide the
revealed bits and then FRed and sent back to be put into the film.
--
From KT24 - in "leafy" Surrey
Using a RISC OS5 computer
certainly the first series which came this was was converted in the US.
The quality was dreadful. (I'm not eveb sure the converters weren't
optical) The subsequent series was bought as a 525/60 tape and converted by
the BBC.
The only explanation I can think of that makes sense is that the programme
makers hope the viewers will be conned into thinking the programme was made
using film, and by subconscious association with feature films assume that it
has had more money spent on it than it really has, and therefore approach it
with different expectations and consequently enjoy it more.
The flicker looks nothing like real life at all. It looks like one system of
imaging technlogy imitating another one. And I'm not even sure about the gamma
characteristics, because television is designed and standardised with the
intention that the overall response will be linear, whereas the overall gamma
responses of films are all different.
> When programmes are recorded filmicly, does the camera still scan interlaced
> video, with the reduction in temporal resolution carried out in
> post-production, or are the cameras switched to scan progressively but
> output interlaced?
If the effect is applied to material that has been already shot on standard
television cameras, it is usually done by discarding every alternate field and
recreating them from the ones that have been kept, which halves the vertical
resolution as a side-effect of halving the temporal resolution.
Some modern cameras can be set to read out every 1/25 second (instead of 1/50),
with the two fields being made from the same pictorial information. This gives
the jerkyvision effect without the loss in vertical resolution. Unfortunately,
if light is integrated over the full 1/25 second, motion judder is intolerable,
so an electronic shutter set to 1/50 or less has to be used as well. This gives
not only jerky movement but gaps in the movement because every alternate 1/50
sec interval is not recorded, i.e. the camera is blind for half of the time,
unlike an unadulterated standard vide camera working in normal mode, which sees
everything and depicts movement without jerkyness or flicker.
Rod.
Why do you think it won't have motion artefacts? *Any* moving picture
system that samples continuous motion at finite intervals is bound to have
motion artefacts! Not only that, but if it is a mechanical system with a
mechanical shutter, there is no escape from the fact that the camera must
be blind for part of its cycle while the shutter is closed and the film is
moved on, whereas standard unadulterated television signals depict it all.
Rod.
Don't think so - strictly 16mm and IIRC some 8mm stuff for in car etc.
The Sweeny was very much made down to a price.
--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *
> But tape editing of film-shot material was pretty common at the time.
No it wasn't.
> You would have noticed instantly if they'd suddenly started making
> stuff like Dallas and LA Law on electronic video cameras - for a start
> it would have LOOKED like video.
Indeed it did.
Mind you, on LA Law, Mike Post's music really came alive when they changed
from film to video...
> (They didn't do "filmlooking" back in
> those days, right?)
NTSC originated electronic stuff looked dreadful enough (by the time we
saw it) without it.
--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *
> certainly the first series which came this was was converted in the US.
> The quality was dreadful. (I'm not eveb sure the converters weren't
> optical) The subsequent series was bought as a 525/60 tape and converted
> by the BBC.
Early Dallas looked stunning as it was 35mm film, Charles. It changed
dramatically at some point and looked horrible. This was the change to
electronic cameras. It's possible it improved later on, but I think I
stopped watching it.
--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*
I wonder if this is partly responsible for the prejudice that still exists
among programme makers to this day to the effect that film is wonderful,
video is rubbish, and there is no way that electronic photography will ever
be capable of surpassing the quality and convenience of the once-only,
expensive, mechanical and chemical system of yesteryear, in which sound and
vision were recorded on separate machines, and which couldn't show you the
pictures you'd taken until the following day at the earliest.
Rod.
> > certainly the first series which came this was was converted in the US.
> > The quality was dreadful. (I'm not eveb sure the converters weren't
> > optical) The subsequent series was bought as a 525/60 tape and converted
> > by the BBC.
> Early Dallas looked stunning as it was 35mm film, Charles. It changed
> dramatically at some point and looked horrible. This was the change to
> electronic cameras.
No, it was the change to badly standards converted video.
> In article <4dfb4fc8...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Was never a big Dallas fan, but I can imagine a straight 60:50
> > > conversion of analogue video, sourced from 3:2 pulldown from 24fps
> > > film would not have looked too excellent, especially since (I think
> > > I'm right in saying) there was no DEFT-type process available at the
> > > time.
>
> > certainly the first series which came this was was converted in the US.
> > The quality was dreadful. (I'm not eveb sure the converters weren't
> > optical) The subsequent series was bought as a 525/60 tape and converted
> > by the BBC.
>
> Early Dallas looked stunning as it was 35mm film, Charles. It changed
> dramatically at some point and looked horrible. This was the change to
> electronic cameras. It's possible it improved later on, but I think I
> stopped watching it.
I think it will have been shot and edited on film throughout because
copies could be sent to any broadcaster without worrying about the
hassle of standards conversion. Quite possibly what most broadcasters
received was a 16mm reduction print.
--
Peter
> I think it will have been shot and edited on film throughout because
> copies could be sent to any broadcaster without worrying about the
> hassle of standards conversion.
The Americans will only do what is convenient for *them*. As far as
they're concerned most of the rest of the World have the audacity to
use differing standards for TV, mains electricity, ISDN coding, mobile
phones, physical measurement units, application of English,........
At least we've come into line on PC operating system software ;-)
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
I have heard from colleagues who have worked on the left of the pond that
the unions there effectively have a stranglehold on the system, and have
until recently virtually dictated to programme makers what technology
they had to use, and in many companies this meant film, even for
multicamera shows in studios, because changing to video would have meant
job losses.
Rod.
>>The Americans will only do what is convenient for *them*. As far as
>>they're concerned most of the rest of the World have the audacity to
>>use differing standards for TV, mains electricity, ISDN coding, mobile
>>phones, physical measurement units, application of English,........
>>
>>At least we've come into line on PC operating system software ;-)
>>
>
> Not all of us. There are quite a few in this group using non-american
> operating systems.
Oh, I know ! However I think we all realise that none of us in here
could be described as 'run of the mill general public' when it comes
to technical matters.
What's the worldwide penetration of Microsoft Windows and Apple combined ?
> No, it was the change to badly standards converted video.
Probably that *too*.
--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*
> I wonder if this is partly responsible for the prejudice that still
> exists among programme makers to this day to the effect that film is
> wonderful, video is rubbish, and there is no way that electronic
> photography will ever be capable of surpassing the quality and
> convenience of the once-only, expensive, mechanical and chemical system
> of yesteryear, in which sound and vision were recorded on separate
> machines, and which couldn't show you the pictures you'd taken until
> the following day at the earliest.
True - but the difference between modern electronic cameras and the first
location types is vast - and film is a mature technology. Early cameras
just simply couldn't cope with the contrast range found in the real world
so were better suited to studio use and controlled lighting.
--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.
> I think it will have been shot and edited on film throughout because
> copies could be sent to any broadcaster without worrying about the
> hassle of standards conversion. Quite possibly what most broadcasters
> received was a 16mm reduction print.
Could well be. And with the change to tape perhaps the contract required
they had to also supply a tape in the format for that country?
--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant
> Not all of us. There are quite a few in this group using non-american
> operating systems.
Or some an American OS but not from the company that is being hinted at.
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
Wasn't Linux (or rather Unix which it's based on) developed in the USA as
well? Are there any operating systems in general usage which weren't
developed mainly in the USA.
The USA may have forced the spellings "program" and "disk" on the world, as
well as technical standards that are defined in inches, but CDs are always
spelled "disc", maybe because of the European influence of Philips who
developed it in conjunction with Sony.
I've always wondered: is it pure coincidence that the two holes in a 3 1/2"
diskette are exactly the same spacing (80 mm, I think) as the rings on an A4
(not American Letter) ring-binder?
No, Linus Torvalds is Finnish and started its development whilst at the
University of Helsinki. Although I believe he does now work in the States.
> > I think it will have been shot and edited on film throughout because
> > copies could be sent to any broadcaster without worrying about the
> > hassle of standards conversion. Quite possibly what most broadcasters
> > received was a 16mm reduction print.
> Could well be. And with the change to tape perhaps the contract required
> they had to also supply a tape in the format for that country?
No, BBC Purchased Programmes were so pleaaed that they'd managed to arrange
a 625/50 copy. The 525/50 version was obtained for te next series.
> > I wonder if this is partly responsible for the prejudice that still
> > exists among programme makers to this day to the effect that film is
> > wonderful, video is rubbish, and there is no way that electronic
> > photography will ever be capable of surpassing the quality and
> > convenience of the once-only, expensive, mechanical and chemical system
> > of yesteryear, in which sound and vision were recorded on separate
> > machines, and which couldn't show you the pictures you'd taken until
> > the following day at the earliest.
> True - but the difference between modern electronic cameras and the first
> location types is vast - and film is a mature technology. Early cameras
> just simply couldn't cope with the contrast range found in the real world
> so were better suited to studio use and controlled lighting.
Yet, at Wood Norton in 1967 - colour course - we were told that Video
cameras had a greater contrast ratio that film. And of course film always
uses uncontrolled lighting ;-) { what are all those 10k lanterns for?)
> Martin Underwood wrote:
>>> What's the worldwide penetration of Microsoft Windows and Apple
>>> combined ?
>>
>> Wasn't Linux (or rather Unix which it's based on) developed in the
>> USA as well?
>
> No, Linus Torvalds is Finnish and started its development whilst at
> the University of Helsinki. Although I believe he does now work in
> the States.
But Linux is a version of Unix, isn't it, so it's American by parentage,
even if it's been further developed by Torvalds.
RISC OS? Depends on how you define 'general usage' but it fits that bill
rather than 'specialised'. So minority might be better.
--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
> Wasn't Linux (or rather Unix which it's based on) developed in
> the USA as well? Are there any operating systems in general
> usage which weren't developed mainly in the USA.
Linus Torvalds originally developed Linux at the University of
Helsinki. He now lives in the USA and since he is said to have
written no more than 2% of the current Linux filecore, you're
probably right.
The OS which Dave Plowman, Charles Hope and I (among others on
this group) use is called RISC OS, written and developed by Acorn
Computers in Cambridge. It is still supported by a band of
enthusiasts and its hardware and software are still being
developed. See www.riscos.org for more details.
[Snip]
> I've always wondered: is it pure coincidence that the two
> holes in a 3 1/2" diskette are exactly the same spacing (80
> mm, I think) as the rings on an A4 (not American Letter)
> ring-binder?
Oh, yes, so they are. I'd never noticed that. However since
only HD discs have two holes, it probably is coincidence.
JD
--
John Devine (BECTU Freelance) Bolton Lancashire
jdbro...@ntlworld.com
ex-BBC Manchester Audio Unit
Old-fashioned BBC engineering!
>Yet, at Wood Norton in 1967 - colour course - we were told that Video
>cameras had a greater contrast ratio that film. And of course film always
>uses uncontrolled lighting ;-) { what are all those 10k lanterns for?)
They were still saying it in 1978.
Regards,
Simonm.
--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/
Heck, why not? Given the vast sums sloshing about in the entertainment
industry, I'm more than happy to see some of it going to craft grades
rather than just 'executives' and 'talent'.
It's the technical professionals who keep the thing going, after all.
I thought there was a feature film, was there not? And other series such
as The Avengers (and possibly The Prisoner) were 35mmm. You can see the
difference.
An artefact, by my limited understanding, is something not there in the
original, but introduced by the process.
Of course film has motion blur, in inverse proportion to the shutter
speed and in proportion to the angular velocity of the object (at the
lens). Fast things are blurred, slow things are not. This is a good
mechanical analogue to the way the human optical system perceives
movement.
In comparison, digital television has artefacts introduced by the
various transcoding processes, that don't manifest in the same way.
Things jump from one place to another on-screen sometimes, sometimes
not, depending of the size of the object and the angular velocity and
its position in the frame, the perceived direction of its movement and
the state of coding process cycles. These effects are visible and
relatively disconcerting as they don't correlate to human perceptual
processes in the same way that filmed movement does.
My personal view is that broadcast digital techniques are not
sufficiently sophisticated to compare to film for these reasons. I've no
doubt they eventually will, but it's not there yet.
Then you were told wrong.
--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?
> But tape editing of film-shot material was pretty common at the time.
Dallas started in '78.
Tape editing of film didn't become common until the advent of component
VTRs - composite ones imposed to many restrictions. In the UK, the PAL 8
field sequence meant you couldn't always edit on the correct frame.
Generation loss became less with component too. DVEs became more practical
in post. Etc etc.
And of course component VTRs sort of arrived at the same time as truly
portable electronic cameras.
--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.
> I thought there was a feature film, was there not?
Oh, there might have been. But I was meaning the TV series.
> And other series such as The Avengers (and possibly The Prisoner) were
> 35mmm. You can see the difference.
Yes - but those were made by Lew Grade with a view to US TV sales. And the
US at the time required 35mm. The Avengers was made in colour before ITV
could actually transmit colour.
Things like The Sweeny would not have sold to the US due to the language
problem...
--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?
>>And other series such as The Avengers (and possibly The Prisoner) were
>>35mmm. You can see the difference.
>
>
> Yes - but those were made by Lew Grade with a view to US TV sales. And the
> US at the time required 35mm. The Avengers was made in colour before ITV
> could actually transmit colour.
<pedant mode>
The Avengers was made by ABC not ATV.
http://www.transdiffusion.org/abc/programmes/index.htm
</pedant mode>
> Things like The Sweeny would not have sold to the US due to the language
> problem...
......and gritty realism :-)
> But Linux is a version of Unix, isn't it,
No, it's "unix-like" not a version of unix.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-simple.png
> <pedant mode>
> The Avengers was made by ABC not ATV.
You're right of course. With Lew Grade and Howard Thomas sworn enemies. ;-)
--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.
> Then you were told wrong.
This might be of interest showing how the *latest* electronic cameras can
match film contrast ratio wise.
<http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/f_rf_technology_corner.shtml>
--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist
I can remember transmitting 35mm copies from TK's 29 &31 in 1981 or 2
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TQ - The Voice Of insanity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm... The main page is a bit more orthodox. Any chart that omits AIX &
HP-UX can't be considered comprehensive or accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
I was thinking of wagon wheels going backwards, hop and weave resulting in the
stationary parts of the picture never being completely still, and moving
objects not being continuous blurs but sequences of separate blurred images
because the camera misses some of the action while the shutter is closed.
These are inherent artefacts of film that unadulterated video either doesn't
suffer from at all, or only for wheels rotating at twice the rate or more.
Rod.
>>> But Linux is a version of Unix, isn't it,
>>
>> No, it's "unix-like" not a version of unix.
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-simple
>> .png
>
> Hmm... The main page is a bit more orthodox. Any chart that omits AIX &
> HP-UX can't be considered comprehensive or accurate.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
And the chart on that page is captioned "Filiation of Unix and Unix-like
systems." but doesn't say which OS are "Unix" and which are "Unix like".
So that can't be considered accurate either. B-)
And if you look at #List_of_Unixes on that page you'll find Linux listed
under "unix like". The crux of the matter is does Linux share any code
with the "commercial" Unixes? IMHO for something to be a "version" of
something else there needs to be a direct link between the two.
> In message <1hb035d.1g0nyd2p0ajtxN%not_i...@btinternet.com>, Peter
> Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> writes
> >Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <4dfb4fc8...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> >> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > Was never a big Dallas fan, but I can imagine a straight 60:50
> >> > > conversion of analogue video, sourced from 3:2 pulldown from 24fps
> >> > > film would not have looked too excellent, especially since (I think
> >> > > I'm right in saying) there was no DEFT-type process available at the
> >> > > time.
> >>
> >> > certainly the first series which came this was was converted in the US.
> >> > The quality was dreadful. (I'm not eveb sure the converters weren't
> >> > optical) The subsequent series was bought as a 525/60 tape and converted
> >> > by the BBC.
> >>
> >> Early Dallas looked stunning as it was 35mm film, Charles. It changed
> >> dramatically at some point and looked horrible. This was the change to
> >> electronic cameras. It's possible it improved later on, but I think I
> >> stopped watching it.
> >
> >I think it will have been shot and edited on film throughout because
> >copies could be sent to any broadcaster without worrying about the
> >hassle of standards conversion. Quite possibly what most broadcasters
> >received was a 16mm reduction print.
>
> I can remember transmitting 35mm copies from TK's 29 &31 in 1981 or 2
Did they switch to 16mm at a later date, which would account for the
drop off in quality that was so obvious?
--
Peter
> --
As a mere layman when it comes to matters concerning broadcast-quality, even
I realised that It was just too awful, it had to be standards converted NTSC
525/60.
>
> Peter
> Did they switch to 16mm at a later date, which would account for the
> drop off in quality that was so obvious?
The change in quality wasn't anything as subtle as that from 35mm to 16mm.
Most punters wouldn't have noticed that.
--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *
Now I remember transferring bits of that episode to VT for promos, 35mm
print from TK24 :)
It was all just a horrible dream...
... I'll get it.
>> But tape editing of film-shot material was pretty common at the time.
>
>Dallas started in '78.
So? Dallas didn't go over to tape-editing later until 1987.
> >Dallas started in '78.
> So? Dallas didn't go over to tape-editing later until 1987.
And changed to electronic cameras. Think if you do some research you'll
turn up shots of these in use...
--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.
[http://www.ultimatedallas.com/backstage/behind3.htm]
"Each scene will be rehearsed once and then filmed, usually twice –
unless the first take was astoundingly perfect or the shot is a
complicated track shot with a moving camera. After the scene is done, it
will be "covered" from several other angles; each angle will favor (sic)
one of the speaking actors. In editing, the various versions will be cut
together so the viewer sees the speaker and one or more reactions. Film
shows such as Dallas rarely use more than one camera (videotaped shows
usually use three cameras) because the look and feel of the film is
based upon the quality of the lighting. Two cameras may be used on an
elaborate stunt, but otherwise the lighting will be adjusted to best
flatter each situation and actor."
It does seem that it was a conventional 35mm 4:3 film shoot. IMDB says
Panaflex kit etc. at 1.33:1.
I did try, but couldn't find any pages referring to video shooting. Of
course, this doesn't prove it wasn't ever shot electronically, and I
can't claim special knowledge of the series.
>> So? Dallas didn't go over to tape-editing later until 1987.
>
>And changed to electronic cameras. Think if you do some research you'll
>turn up shots of these in use...
Back when the change occured (might have been 1986 actually) the
explanation as given by the BBC on Points Of View was that Dallas was
still being shot on 35mm film and transferred to videotape (one inch,
as it happens) for editing.
This is interesting:
http://www.soapchat.net/showthread.php?t=105807
As is this:
http://videoexpert.home.att.net/artic2/198stand.htm
The policy of tape editing as adopted by many shows at the time is now
coming back to bite the producers as they realise that the full
potential of DVD release, remastering and hi-def retransfer is only
possible for the first half of the series that they produced entirely
on film, and impossible for the rest of the series which will forever
be ratty analogue SD video edits.
OK, technology movies on, and we at least have DEFT to rescue some
kind of salvagable 24fps material from the ashes, but the sheer
quality of the original film is long gone and is never coming back.
> This is interesting:
> http://www.soapchat.net/showthread.php?t=105807
Says it was shot on video.
QED.
--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *
> [http://www.ultimatedallas.com/backstage/behind3.htm]
> "Each scene will be rehearsed once and then filmed, usually twice -
> unless the first take was astoundingly perfect or the shot is a
> complicated track shot with a moving camera. After the scene is done, it
> will be "covered" from several other angles; each angle will favor (sic)
> one of the speaking actors. In editing, the various versions will be cut
> together so the viewer sees the speaker and one or more reactions. Film
> shows such as Dallas rarely use more than one camera (videotaped shows
> usually use three cameras) because the look and feel of the film is
> based upon the quality of the lighting. Two cameras may be used on an
> elaborate stunt, but otherwise the lighting will be adjusted to best
> flatter each situation and actor."
> It does seem that it was a conventional 35mm 4:3 film shoot. IMDB says
> Panaflex kit etc. at 1.33:1.
Yes, but no date I can find on this article.
> I did try, but couldn't find any pages referring to video shooting. Of
> course, this doesn't prove it wasn't ever shot electronically, and I
> can't claim special knowledge of the series.
The degradation of quality said to me it was not only badly converted NTSC
to PAL tape but early location video cameras too.
--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Er, where does it say that? There are a number of references similar to:
"Just to clarify something - Dallas was always shot on film, but starting
with the 86/87 season was transferred to videotape for editing."
and most of them seem to be be people who understand the process.
The ONLY reference to electronic cameras I notice is one fellow who thinks
that two particular shots may have been electronic in origin.
After around an hour of Googling everywhere I find tells the same 35mm
film/electronic post story, and the only production shots I can find show
film cameras (Panaflex I think).
Bob
>It's down to lack of imagination on the part of the execs. IIRC, going
>back 20 years or so, several proposals were made to shoot on 35 with a
>cut for theatre release ahead of a series (Jim G., were you involved in
>anything like this?). At the time, Ealing had aged but still functional
>35mm cameras that could have been pressed into service, and the larger
>dubbing theatres were all dual gauge (although this doesn't much matter
>really, as long as the neg. is 35mm). It may have been contracts that
>scuppered the idea - too difficult to negotiate or whatever.
>
There was certainly talk of going back to 35mm shooting in the mid to
late 80s prompted, IIRC, with the possibility of making programmes
with theatrical release in mind. But I don't think it ever happened
since Mr Birt would probably have clobbered it on cost alone. That
was the start of the cutting back era and most production departments
were being saddled with 10% cuts in expenditure year on year. I do
remember investigating the use of three perf 35mm to cut down stock
and processing costs, but the knock on costs of re-jigging
post-production to handle three perf ruled that out.
Also the BBC and other UK broadcasters had developed a lot of skill
and experience in making very high quality 16mm film and Kodak and
Fuji kept improving their emulsions as well, so the push to go for
35mm on quality alone was a hard argument to make.
The use of 35mm in the US was because the US considered 16mm as an
amateur gauge and would never consider using it for broadcast, unless
it was in documentary footage, but certainly never for drama. I
noted elsewhere in this thread that someone stated that there would be
little difference between a 35mm and a 16mm product from the US - on
the contrary there would be an enormous difference since the US system
didn't know how to handle the smaller gauge. Kodak certainly learned
that lesson when releasing any new 16mm emulsions in the 80s - they
found out that to get the best demo film, they got either BBC or ITV
people to shoot and edit it.
>It still strikes me as crazy that Morse (and now 'Lewis') weren't shot
>on 35, at least for some 'specials'. ISTR they did it for the Sweeney...
It would be cost - I think ITV had more bean counters (and
shareholders) than the Beeb :-)
As a side issue, I actually worked as recordist on the last 35mm
drama shot by the Beeb and that was "The Borderers" That would have
been around 1971.
Jim
I looked at that.
"My understanding is that prior to the widespread use of digital video,
in 1986 when Lorimar changed its process, the show was still shot on
film but dubbed down to video for editing purposes-- but on 1" video
instead of the traditional 2", causing it to look as though it might as
well have been shot on tape. And because this was done prior to editing,
the only master-copies are the 1" video version, which means it can't
really be fixed or better prints struck."
There are some entertaining descriptions of editing processes, 1" and 2"
VT later in the thread, but nobody tries to defend the idea that it was
shot on tape, apart from (allegedly) a single scene involving a TV in
shot in JR's office.
If that's true, it may have been that the anti-strobing shutter wasn't
available to the production when needed, or even that the scene had too
much movement to use it. Panaflex kit is only available for hire, it
can't be bought (AFAIK), so they'd have been reliant on what Panavision
had on the shelf in stores at the time they wanted to shoot.
I was amused by the "you can't edit film quickly" and "film editing is
much more expensive" comments. It is nowadays, but not back in the
1980s, when the cost-per-hour of a cutting room was peanuts compared to
a 3-machine 1" suite. Even when you take the cost of neg cutting
opticals and showprints into account, I doubt it was anything like as
clear cut as it might seem. 35mm does bump the cost up hugely, it's
true, but you could cut and dub in 16mm if you wanted (relatively
cheaply), and there was timecoded auto-conforming for film starting in
the mid 1980s too.
My guess is that the networks were beginning to ask for tapes instead of
film, and Lorimar decided electronic post-pro was the way forward.
Simon,
>I was amused by the "you can't edit film quickly" and "film editing is
>much more expensive" comments. It is nowadays, but not back in the
>1980s, when the cost-per-hour of a cutting room was peanuts compared to
>a 3-machine 1" suite. Even when you take the cost of neg cutting
>opticals and showprints into account, I doubt it was anything like as
>clear cut as it might seem. 35mm does bump the cost up hugely, it's
>true, but you could cut and dub in 16mm if you wanted (relatively
>cheaply), and there was timecoded auto-conforming for film starting in
>the mid 1980s too.
Many people have done comparisons in costs between shooting on film
and tape over the past two or three decades and all the ones I have
seen have shown little difference in overall costs. This is assuming
that the production is looking for a good to high quality product.
I don't think film or high quality video can compete on costs with an
el cheapo small video camera loaded straight into FCP, and playing
the transmission copy out of FCP :-)
Jim.
> Er, where does it say that?
Second article down by chris3
"In the early years of Dallas, it was shot on film and edited on film.
So, the grittiness you see is a reflection of film stock and how dirty
the master is that it was taken from. By the 1986-87 season, to cut
costs and to the advancement of technology, it was shot on video and
edited on video."
--
*Born free...Taxed to death.
Nowadays it doesn't have to be particularly "el-cheapo" for a meaningful
comparison. You could probably buy a very nice broadcast quality video
camcorder for the cost of two or three finished *prints* of a 35mm feature
film, never mind the production costs.
Rod.
>> This is interesting:
>> http://www.soapchat.net/showthread.php?t=105807
>
>Says it was shot on video.
>
>QED.
Read the whole thread. One poster says it was shot on video, the rest
then corrected him.
Dallas was tape-edited.
Rod,
>> Many people have done comparisons in costs between shooting on film
>> and tape over the past two or three decades and all the ones I have
>> seen have shown little difference in overall costs. This is assuming
>> that the production is looking for a good to high quality product.
>> I don't think film or high quality video can compete on costs with an
>> el cheapo small video camera loaded straight into FCP, and playing
>> the transmission copy out of FCP :-)
>
>Nowadays it doesn't have to be particularly "el-cheapo" for a meaningful
>comparison. You could probably buy a very nice broadcast quality video
>camcorder for the cost of two or three finished *prints* of a 35mm feature
>film, never mind the production costs.
I was really referring to broadcast and 16mm film where 16mm costs
were a lot cheaper than 35mm. Basically, on the productions
investigated, the cost of the stock, be it film stock+processing or
tape, was a very small proportion of the overall budget. I have
memories of working on 16mm film drama budgets where the overall cost
of the drama was about £750,000 and the film stock and processing
costs were about £10,000. On some large productions, the cost of
hire cars was, and possibly still is, higher than the film stock
costs.
As Simon has already mentioned, film editing was a comparatively
cheap resource with £15000 Steenbecks and £3000 Compeditors working
for >10 years so the cutting room equipment was charged out at about
£30 per day, IIRC, which was chicken feed compared to video post
production costs. And if you wanted to edit to the same standard as
film, linear video editing could take a fair bit longer to achieve
the same end result. The advent of Lightworks and Avid improved the
speed of editing of video pictures but the costs of the machines were
very much higher than traditional film costs and it was quite common
for producers to do deals with editors to work long days so that the
Avid/Lightworks hire period would be kept down to keep post production
costs within budget.
Jim.
In 1981/2 I doubt it .....
Just about every post contradicts the previous one. But chris3 didn't
retract his original statement in a later post.
Other interesting thing was that a US poster said it looked terrible in
the US too, which sort of rules out the NTSC to PAL conversion has being
the main culprit.
> Dallas was tape-edited.
Thing is film has been transferred to tape since pretty well the earliest
days of tape. Think film inserts on just about every type of studio based
production. So why all of a sudden were the results so poor?
--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.