|
Post by Richard Marple on Nov 1, 2019 13:56:28 GMT
Well good news but only in part : Having checked for any news at the Worzel Book Facebook page, they wrote on 28th October, that the new edition of the Christmas Special (to be released on 4th November) is transferred from the recently found negatives. Unfortunately however, in the new 'The Complete Collection' - to be released on 25th November - all the other Worzel films are from the same old masters as before. The Xmas one in both releases is DVD not Blu ray. The Facebook page author says the company thought about using the recovered negs for the others but in the end decided not to! And the author hopes that in the future they will restore the others utilising the negatives. So, a bit strange they haven't in the end restored the whole lot & put them on Blu ray. Look forward to buying the one disc new Christmas Special release. I guess the cost of cleaning the negatives up & blu-ray mastering is high, & the projected sales weren't high enough to pay for it all.
|
|
|
Post by timmunton on Nov 7, 2019 13:03:49 GMT
Having now looked at the new edition of the Xmas special it's a mixed bag. Generally a lot better than before & the colour mainly very impressive. But on the downside the black levels vary too much between different scenes in a few places at least (ie. in scenes where you'd expect them to be about the same).
More seriously though the picture seems much softer than it needs to be (& I'm allowing for the time of production etc) - This may be the result of an excessive use of DNR re. the visual element. There is a smoothing of the visual details, most noticeable in skin tones: In many instances it makes facial skin colour look unnaturally uniform & somewhat processed I'm no expert but I couldn't discern any film grain left at all - at a couple of points, to test further, I went to a few inches from the screen (50 inch HD) & even at that proximity couldn't discern any residual grain.
Also - soundtrack ok but rather unmodulated; I wonder if sound restoration was somewhat perfunctory as given modern restoration techniques, unless the original sound was in very bad condition/badly recorded, I would have thought a bit more of a layered rendering (still in mono of course) would have been possible.
Still glad I bought it, but a bit disappointed also, after the great news a while ago about the rediscovered negatives. I would much rather have had more grain even if that came with more noticeable filmic imperfections.
|
|
|
Post by stevehoare61 on Nov 8, 2019 7:29:12 GMT
Do these companies never learn anything? Im amazed that we have this fantastic discovery and rather than upscale the Collection, its the same old poor copies....WHY? Its stopped me buying it, whats the point? Get off your lazy arses and sort this out...
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Nov 8, 2019 9:53:01 GMT
Wasn't WG made in the era when film programmes were edited and mastered on rather lackluster one inch video tape?
Hence you might have a load of negatives but you now need somebody who knew the programme to put them all back together again and the all important time to do so.
The other problem I think (maybe wrong) is the rights owners who bought Southern TV programme rights were American and were ignorant about WG's place in history on TV outside America, and as a bargain bucket by product of whatever they were actually after in the rights purchase did not have the incentive...or see the investment potential of assembling a team to revive WG for a modern audience.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 10, 2019 5:53:18 GMT
Wasn't WG made in the era when film programmes were edited and mastered on rather lackluster one inch video tape? Hence you might have a load of negatives but you now need somebody who knew the programme to put them all back together again and the all important time to do so. The other problem I think (maybe wrong) is the rights owners who bought Southern TV programme rights were American and were ignorant about WG's place in history on TV outside America, and as a bargain bucket by product of whatever they were actually after in the rights purchase did not have the incentive...or see the investment potential of assembling a team to revive WG for a modern audience. Just a thought. Film was usually edited as film. Part of the point of using film was that it could be edited on inexpensive equipment in an office instead of tying up costly video editing suites. As I have mentioned before, when I worked for a film editing company in the 80s the BBC actually edited some video on timecoded 16mm film. Even where film was used as inserts for a programme which ended up on tape it was usually edited as reversal film (for cheapo productions and news) or as a workprint from the negative. I can't think of any programme that was completely originated on film as WG was but then was edited on video. However what did happen was that sometimes titles and captions were added as the film was transferred to tape in a straight run through. In that case the video would be the transmission master.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Nov 10, 2019 16:53:23 GMT
Film was usually edited as film. Part of the point of using film was that it could be edited on inexpensive equipment in an office instead of tying up costly video editing suites. As I have mentioned before, when I worked for a film editing company in the 80s the BBC actually edited some video on timecoded 16mm film. Even where film was used as inserts for a programme which ended up on tape it was usually edited as reversal film (for cheapo productions and news) or as a workprint from the negative. I can't think of any programme that was completely originated on film as WG was but then was edited on video. However what did happen was that sometimes titles and captions were added as the film was transferred to tape in a straight run through. In that case the video would be the transmission master. Yes it was only just a thought and suggestion, as to why WG has been in limbo for so long. The editing capabilities of the 'new' 1 inch tape encouraged a few to transfer directly from film to tape and edit from there, these programmes use to look noisy on screen... I think 'Cat's Eyes' and 'Dempsey and Makepiece' were done in this way..in fact I recall an episode of 'Cat's Eyes' where part of a scene repeated itself which would have not happened on a film edit. This would I would think make these types of programmes very expensive to restore to the images they are capable of as they have to start right at the beginning with cans of negatives, the paperwork and even finding a 1 inch machine to use as a guide.
|
|
|
Post by Nigel Lamb on Nov 10, 2019 20:11:04 GMT
I seem to recall a conversation I had with someone a few years ago, I forget who it was that told me that Endomel - the rights owners of Worzel were made aware of the existence of negatives for Worzel several years ago and declined them, not interested in them and quite happy for them to be thrown away.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 11, 2019 16:54:21 GMT
Yes it was only just a thought and suggestion, as to why WG has been in limbo for so long. The editing capabilities of the 'new' 1 inch tape encouraged a few to transfer directly from film to tape and edit from there, these programmes use to look noisy on screen... I think 'Cat's Eyes' and 'Dempsey and Makepiece' were done in this way..in fact I recall an episode of 'Cat's Eyes' where part of a scene repeated itself which would have not happened on a film edit. This would I would think make these types of programmes very expensive to restore to the images they are capable of as they have to start right at the beginning with cans of negatives, the paperwork and even finding a 1 inch machine to use as a guide. Interesting. I wonder how they did it if so? The film would be negative and would have to be colour graded at some point. Programmes edited on film would have the negative cut into A and B rolls and then the colour of each scene adjusted at the lab to make a final print. If editing on video they would have to telecine all the uncut negative, remove the orange colour cast and invert it before they could start. Unless they made a graded film print of all footage which would be very expensive. Looking at Worzel Gummidge, the colour and definition I would say it's definitely a 1980s film print, not a transfer from a negative.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Griffin on Nov 11, 2019 22:40:41 GMT
Wasn't WG made in the era when film programmes were edited and mastered on rather lackluster one inch video tape? No. The original Southern run would have predated the widespread adoption of one-inch tape. I've had a look at a few clips online and it appears that the titles etc. were done optically, which wouldn't usually be the case for something edited on videotape.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Tinkler on Nov 12, 2019 10:42:42 GMT
It's the same era as Robin Of Sherwood and similar shows from HTV all shot and cut on film... They might have been transferred to tape for TV but certainly the final copies were film. Important to remember that means that they could easily be shipped around the world for international sales as everyone could play 16mm as opposed to transferring different videotape formats...
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Nov 12, 2019 19:29:19 GMT
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was shot entirely on film but edited and transmitted entirely on and from 2" videotape.
|
|
|
Post by Ken Griffin on Nov 12, 2019 21:20:46 GMT
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was shot entirely on film but edited and transmitted entirely on and from 2" videotape. It was also edited on film. Some of the captions were added electronically though when it was transferred to 2" tape for transmission.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 13, 2019 5:11:50 GMT
I've now checked my 1981 recording of Worzel Gummidge and I can tell from the movement of the film in the gate at each edit that it was edited as film not video.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 13, 2019 5:13:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Nov 13, 2019 12:38:36 GMT
These things are never as clear cut as people like them to be. Sure, there are patterns, but as with every rule there have always been plenty of exceptions, so it's never correct to say "this would never happen".
Example 1: Trumptonshire trilogy... the first so-called "restored" DVD set was restored from 2" tape dubs made in the 70s... by the BBC, even though the BBC itself always TX'd it from film. I do believe they did the same with the Paddington and Mr. Men films, maybe with a view to keeping them as safety copies if the films fell apart. Which they almost were by the ends of their respective runs.
Example 2: Difference in ITV company procedures. Many regions transmitted from TK through the 80s and some, like Granada, right up until the mid-90s. Yes really. Some, like Central, ran all film originated material from VT, telecined in advance... even their film based news programme titles. I can't say what Southern's policy was but there are a number of scenarios under which a transfer to VT would become requested, even if it was just to send to either Thames/LWT for Watch It! or Central for Children's ITV. In fact, Southern could even have run it from TK over the network from where the transmitting ITV company recorded the incoming line on VT. The point? Some VT copy made at some point might easily have made it back into the food chain and that's what were used for existing VHS and DVD releases. Remember facility houses booked to brand-and-band masters for home video duplication usually expected a videotape to be delivered to them, not film. All TK work would usually be expected to have been done by the client either in house or at another facility specializing in that.
|
|