|
Post by Marty Schultz on Mar 5, 2018 23:49:42 GMT
I'm sure the guy I know said it was too expensive to use the microwave transmitter for serials hence it was dumped to tape and sent by train. News needing to be current however was. I'll ask about processing.
|
|
|
Post by Marty Schultz on Mar 6, 2018 0:07:48 GMT
So basically he is adamant that tapes were sent in mid late 60s and early 70s yet the paperwork says the machines weren't bought till later. I'll mention it again to him later this week and see if he can qualify the story. I'll show him the photo too. It’s DATES that matter, things changed over time. I was going to ask him about when tape dubs were done. He clearly remembers himself dumping Doctor Who to tape. I was going to ask when this began? Is there a specific time or question I can ask him? Will be seeing him tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Mar 6, 2018 0:53:37 GMT
It’s DATES that matter, things changed over time. I was going to ask him about when tape dubs were done. He clearly remembers himself dumping Doctor Who to tape. I was going to ask when this began? Is there a specific time or question I can ask him? Will be seeing him tomorrow. Ideally we want to tie things down to specific years..
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Mar 6, 2018 1:09:08 GMT
I don't think the ABC did have in-house facilities for copying and processing film, but in the era we're talking about news stories were almost always shot on 16mm film. Close to the studios in the major cities were film labs who depended on business from TV stations. An item filmed in the morning could be processed by lunchtime, edited in the afternoon, and broadcast on the evening news. So duplicates of film programmes could if necessary be made quickly and easily, though not all that cheaply. I don't recall entire programmes being copied while I worked there, but I did have to run old reels from the library to the film lab to get sections copied for the news editors to use. Copying a print wasn't difficult; the lab would use low-contrast duplicating reversal film in a one step process. No internegative was needed. Interesting to know:-) But when was this? This is what I remember working at the ABC in Perth in the early 80's when news was still mostly on 16mm. My assumption is that the quick processing of 16mm must have been established in the 60's when ABC TV began broadcasting. TVW7, the commercial channel up in Tuart Hill, had an in-house film processer called Filmlab 7. Filmlab also did outside work, including Super8 processing and printing.
|
|
|
Post by Marty Schultz on Mar 7, 2018 8:28:41 GMT
Wow. 16mm was done at the ABC. Duplicates 16mm was often done with a prism and ariflex? equipment. Telerecorded 16mm. There was also another place doing duplicates for the ABC which I won't reveal publicly at this time. Duplicate 16mm was couriered by plane. Co-ax was run from Sydney to Melbourne.in 65? 2" quad was used for some couriered programmes in the mid-60s. 1965 was stated. This system typically stopped being done between 65-68. It wasn't just sent to the typical ABC stations... I have a few leads as to where else that I'll follow up.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Mar 7, 2018 17:56:40 GMT
I've heard it was common to simply stabilise the in camera negatives of news reports to save time, then electronically reverse them to a positive image on the mixing desk when being transmitted.
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Mar 8, 2018 12:46:20 GMT
I've heard it was common to simply stabilise the in camera negatives of news reports to save time, then electronically reverse them to a positive image on the mixing desk when being transmitted. Circa 1980 at ABC Perth, news was almost always shot with sound-on-film magnetic stripe reversal (positive) stock, which after processing was cut and spliced using clear tape, and then put through the telecine for broadcast. Since no film copying was required, this was the cheapest option. For current affairs items, there would more likely be someone recording better quality sync sound on 1/4 inch magnetic tape (double system), and if visual quality was very important, the production would be shot using negative film, which allowed for lab adjustments of exposure and colour balance. 16mm would be hard to edit in negative form, which is why positive cutting copies were made. Or you could transfer the negatives directly to videotape, electronically reversing them to positive, and edit on tape. This method gave very high quality images while saving on film copying costs.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Vanderlinde-Abernathy on Mar 9, 2018 2:20:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mike Biggs on Mar 9, 2018 7:54:01 GMT
I'm an archivist, but don't work with film too much. I've certainly seen a number of paper records that look brand new, yet are over 60 years old. On the personal side, I've got a set of reel to reel tapes that I've inherited and found one from 1970 with a label that is in pretty good nick - I've tried to attach a picture.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Mar 9, 2018 10:38:00 GMT
There’s still little, if any, need for duplicate prints.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Vanderlinde-Abernathy on Mar 9, 2018 12:19:14 GMT
Missing Episodes on Facebook blocked the conversation on the basis that experts call it a forgery.
Wether it’s a forgery or not I’m not sure. Problem is that there’s not much else you can do. It’s a one of a kind item. Nothing like it had been seen before. There’s no precedent so what the heck do you do with it?
Unless a collector or archivist comes forward and says: “I’ve seen something like this before” or “I know what this is” ...then there’s not really anything you can do.
Sure, we can prove that labels like this can age well... but without any other evidence to support its background then it can’t be considered viable.
They should keep the can. In case one day someone figures something out. Or proves what it is one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Biggs on Mar 9, 2018 20:39:28 GMT
Missing Episodes on Facebook blocked the conversation on the basis that experts call it a forgery. Wether it’s a forgery or not I’m not sure. Problem is that there’s not much else you can do. It’s a one of a kind item. Nothing like it had been seen before. There’s no precedent so what the heck do you do with it? Unless a collector or archivist comes forward and says: “I’ve seen something like this before” or “I know what this is” ...then there’s not really anything you can do. Sure, we can prove that labels like this can age well... but without any other evidence to support its background then it can’t be considered viable. They should keep the can. In case one day someone figures something out. Or proves what it is one way or another. As you say, there isn't really enough evidence to say either way. I'm curious, has anyone tried researching this idea before? I'd look into it myself, but I'm in the wrong country .
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Mar 9, 2018 23:08:20 GMT
I don’t think anybody is saying that there couldn’t be, or weren’t, dupes - it’s difficult to prove a negative. The problem is that there wasn’t really any need for dupes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Biggs on Mar 9, 2018 23:30:44 GMT
I don’t think anybody is saying that there couldn’t be, or weren’t, dupes - it’s difficult to prove a negative. The problem is that there wasn’t really any need for dupes. There certainly wasn't any need in NZ, all transmission dates were staggered, so the one set of prints were bicycled around the country. Apparently in Australia there are examples of the same serial being broadcast at the same time at different lengths of the country - that might indicate a need given the limited connectivity of the time. It's all down to whatever the ABC thought was the easiest and cheapest way to do their job.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Mar 10, 2018 0:04:20 GMT
I don’t think anybody is saying that there couldn’t be, or weren’t, dupes - it’s difficult to prove a negative. The problem is that there wasn’t really any need for dupes. There certainly wasn't any need in NZ, all transmission dates were staggered, so the one set of prints were bicycled around the country. Apparently in Australia there are examples of the same serial being broadcast at the same time at different lengths of the country - that might indicate a need given the limited connectivity of the time. It's all down to whatever the ABC thought was the easiest and cheapest way to do their job. That’s not correct gallifreybase.com/w/index.php/Australia“On rare occasions, the same episode aired on the same day but in different states, which meant that multiple prints of some episodes may have existed, although there were other methods by which 'dual' transmissions across the different states could be achieved.”
|
|