|
Post by aidanlunn on Jan 9, 2019 9:03:19 GMT
The BBC wasted £300 million on the failed Digital Media Initiative. Wouldn't that have been better spent manufacturing technology to do something like this and many other things? Also on manufacturing new heads for Panasonic D3 video recorders so they could continue playing those tapes? Or bunging Panasonic a few million to make hundreds more. At the time the project was begun, it wasn't seen as wastage. It's only with hindsight that we know this. As for spending the money on developing technology like this, it's not the BBC's job to preserve tapes they don't own, even if they own the intellectual rights to the material stored on them. Panasonic - like Ampex - have made it quite clear that they don't intend to make parts for these machines any longer. Bribing companies like this rarely makes any difference and there would be little benefit to making their own heads, given that there are now going to be very few places in the world with the technology and expertise to do so. The manufacture of obsolete tape heads is a fact of archiving life that just has to be accepted and planned for - I understand ITV are having similar problems with the archives of companies who used the D-2 format (like LWT). As did FremantleMedia when Thames' archive of MII tapes were being dubbed.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jan 9, 2019 11:41:15 GMT
The BBC wasted £300 million on the failed Digital Media Initiative. Wouldn't that have been better spent manufacturing technology to do something like this and many other things? Also on manufacturing new heads for Panasonic D3 video recorders so they could continue playing those tapes? Or bunging Panasonic a few million to make hundreds more. Should they spend lots of money to get slightly better copies off of a handful of tapes that are never going to be of broadcast(able) quality, nor of any interest to 99.9% of the population? I want them to colour-recover a lot of stuff - but I have to accept the hard fact that it's not going to happen, because only a few people would care for it.
|
|
|
Post by iwest on Jan 9, 2019 12:15:20 GMT
Should they spend lots of money to get slightly better copies off of a handful of tapes that are never going to be of broadcast(able) quality I'm not disagreeing with your general point about cost justifications, but re: the concept of "broadcastable", if you look at the quality of the two Bee Gees home-recorded clips that were included in "Bee Gees at the BBC and Beyond" * (and sourced from a similar 60s domestic reel-to-reel format, though someone will correct me if I'm wrong) then it's clear that what Kaleidoscope are working on *could* be broadcast, particularly if it turns out to contain clips of significant historical interest. * (I think there was a similar-quality clip in "Slade at the BBC" too iirc.)
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jan 9, 2019 13:34:34 GMT
Should they spend lots of money to get slightly better copies off of a handful of tapes that are never going to be of broadcast(able) quality I'm not disagreeing with your general point about cost justifications, but re: the concept of "broadcastable", if you look at the quality of the two Bee Gees home-recorded clips that were included in "Bee Gees at the BBC and Beyond" * (and sourced from a similar 60s domestic reel-to-reel format, though someone will correct me if I'm wrong) then it's clear that what Kaleidoscope are working on *could* be broadcast, particularly if it turns out to contain clips of significant historical interest. * (I think there was a similar-quality clip in "Slade at the BBC" too iirc.) That's not something that I know. How long was the clip that was used? While it's definitely good to have these back as best as possible, I am 99% certain that anything from these old domestic formats won't be suitable for broadcast on its own. Special use inside a retrospective, yes, or as bonus features. But you can't bring back picture quality that isn't there anymore. You couldn't take a whole program and put that on the air like nothing happened, that would be too much. B.t.w. I am not against the effort at all, on the contrary - I'm just saying the potential use and interest are limited.
|
|
|
Post by iwest on Jan 9, 2019 14:40:44 GMT
That's not something that I know. How long was the clip that was used? The whole performance, in both cases. This is one of them: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZdtgosBo58Picture quality is close enough to how it was on the original BBC4 broadcast (I realise that that's not always true of YT uploads.) True, in the Bee Gees case they inserted two clips into an hour long show that otherwise consisted of broadcast-quality clips, a similar thing with the Slade one. I can't imagine an entire show consisting of nothing but these clips - much as people on here would love to see it - as it just wouldn't be considered acceptable to the powers that be. But as a source of possible clips for inserting into shows like these there is still a value in this material. Again I agree, but what is the actual cost involved in doing these "properly"? (Assuming you accept the argument that Kaleidoscope aren't doing the best possible job, which is a different matter altogether.) If Paul Vanezis thinks the best solution is to film them off a 405-line monitor instead then this doesn't sound very time-consuming or expensive to me. The main obstacle you'd think would be getting Kaleidoscope to agree to giving someone else another go, not the cost.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Walsh on Jan 9, 2019 17:35:56 GMT
You see there are a few answers above that sum this entire farce up. The quality aspect. If it's such a horrible demanding outdated money sucking impossible procedure then why.....why are these people out looking for stuff?
The Kaleidoscope video was made with a bit of fanfare a few weeks back which was great but all it is now is "they won't be shown", "they're just not broadcastable quality", "the BBC or ITV don't care if we find them anyway". This still just smells of a bunch of geezers trainspotting their way around old dears lofts to suddenly feel important when something is unearthed but only end up leaving it in their own loft. It's just b****x. And if your response is "Well KAL will show it". Whoop di doo. Not everyone lives a mile from Yorkshire who loves this stuff but I'll tell you they'd travel if they could purchase a DVD of what they're travelling to see. Seems to me that the constant reminders of the "law" when it comes to sharing is used with a nod and a wink by the powers that be. We'll buy it. You can fund more trips to unearth stuff and I bet you won't get one call from anyone about it. My music is nicked and put all over the net as soon as it comes out, by legitimate so called companies. I just have to bend over and let them give me a good seeing to. I've no chance of stopping that stuff from going on. Just get crafty and get pro-active you guys. We're a long time gone and the artists on these tapes are dropping like flies too. Remember that. I'm sure they'd love to see this stuff, a lot of times for the first time.
I know some major tech guys in LA that would sort those tapes out and love doing every minute of the work for nothing but you stick with Arthur Smegsworth and his sewing machine in a shed in Homelees, The Burrough, Oswestry.
Bah humbug.
|
|
|
Post by rmackenziefehr on Jan 9, 2019 20:18:47 GMT
Several comments, concerning points raised:
1) In terms of using the money spent on the Digital Media Initiative: Imagine the reaction that would have occurred if the BBC had spent that large an amount of money on behalf of dubbing a relatively small number of tapes, many of which contain ITV content, and in a circumstance where a much cheaper way of doing so has been in use for decades. It would have made the negative reactions to the failure of the Digital Media Initiative look tame.
2) For Kaleidoscope to decide to ignore copyright laws like that would be destructive- and, quite likely, destructive with minimal gain, as I have the cynical suspicion that a lot of the folk who claim they wouldn't come unless they could buy stuff would instead wait for someone who did buy it to upload it online.
3) The point involving the interests of the artists, while fair, is one that has to be taken with a grain of salt in this context, as there are ways to serve their interests that don't serve those of the pirates.
4) Finally, involving those tech folk in Los Angeles: That there are folk who do so for vintage recordings is unquestionable (I've been following the work one has been doing with American television broadcasts from the early 1970s). However, there are two issues I see with getting them involved, even if they will work for free: Firstly, transporting the tapes to them and from them is a rather expensive proposition in its own right, and, secondly, I've heard some horror stories involving disasters occurring with these efforts to ship programs on tape formats more relatively stable than these. This leaves bringing the experts to the tapes, and that's also expensive and time-consuming (especially if they don't already have passports).
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jan 9, 2019 22:03:23 GMT
Yeah re the "experts in LA", well, they've probably never heared of, or worked with, 405 line? And would they be willing to do all the tapes or just the handful of artists that appeal to them? To have a repeatable solution in the UK isn't so bad. More is available now than ever, so the complaint that you can't see stuff is understandable, but at the same time feels a bit ungrateful.
I wish they had done a better transfer of those Tommy Cooper and Benny Hill episodes that exist on CV2000.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Jan 9, 2019 23:07:45 GMT
Yeah re the "experts in LA", well, they've probably never heared of, or worked with, 405 line? And would they be willing to do all the tapes or just the handful of artists that appeal to them? To have a repeatable solution in the UK isn't so bad. More is available now than ever, so the complaint that you can't see stuff is understandable, but at the same time feels a bit ungrateful. I wish they had done a better transfer of those Tommy Cooper and Benny Hill episodes that exist on CV2000. There is a domestic format copy of bits of the 67 Benny Hill Xmas show on You Tube.but it actually exists in the archives as 2' colour VT PAL thanks to Lew Grade.While Benny's 'mid Atlantic' excursion for Lew 'Spotlight'(the show that sent him walking away from ATV) also exists as 2' NTSC.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jan 9, 2019 23:16:07 GMT
Yeah re the "experts in LA", well, they've probably never heared of, or worked with, 405 line? And would they be willing to do all the tapes or just the handful of artists that appeal to them? To have a repeatable solution in the UK isn't so bad. More is available now than ever, so the complaint that you can't see stuff is understandable, but at the same time feels a bit ungrateful. I wish they had done a better transfer of those Tommy Cooper and Benny Hill episodes that exist on CV2000. There is a domestic format copy of bits of the 67 Benny Hill Xmas show on You Tube.but it actually exists in the archives as 2' colour VT PAL thanks to Lew Grade.While Benny's 'mid Atlantic' excursion for Lew 'Spotlight'(the show that sent him walking away from ATV) also exists as 2' NTSC. No, it's one of his last BBC shows. And a Tommy Cooper from ATV.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jan 10, 2019 0:11:42 GMT
You see there are a few answers above that sum this entire farce up. The quality aspect. If it's such a horrible demanding outdated money sucking impossible procedure then why.....why are these people out looking for stuff? OK. Well, I don't think it's a farce to try and get something out of these tapes and the process Kaleidoscope is going through, although tried before, may well deliver good results. We shall see. The Kaleidoscope video was made with a bit of fanfare a few weeks back which was great but all it is now is "they won't be shown", "they're just not broadcastable quality", "the BBC or ITV don't care if we find them anyway". This still just smells of a bunch of geezers trainspotting their way around old dears lofts to suddenly feel important when something is unearthed but only end up leaving it in their own loft. It's just b****x. And if your response is "Well KAL will show it". Whoop di doo. Not everyone lives a mile from Yorkshire who loves this stuff but I'll tell you they'd travel if they could purchase a DVD of what they're travelling to see. Seems to me that the constant reminders of the "law" when it comes to sharing is used with a nod and a wink by the powers that be. We'll buy it. You can fund more trips to unearth stuff and I bet you won't get one call from anyone about it. I think you'll find that rights holders do take notice and do protect their rights. For example, Kaleidoscope themselves fell foul of one rights holder when they launched their recent DVD label, and there are issues still to be resolved regarding their DVD release of 'The Native Hue of Resolution', which contains a lot of music and archive material that they published without clearing it. That aside, are you saying that it isn't worth doing because it's too difficult? I know some major tech guys in LA that would sort those tapes out and love doing every minute of the work for nothing but you stick with Arthur Smegsworth and his sewing machine in a shed in Homelees, The Burrough, Oswestry. I'm afraid that this particular problem isn't going to be resolved by people in LA, but it will be solved by some major tech guys. Paul
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jan 10, 2019 0:19:19 GMT
I've merged replies to several posts into one:
> At the time the project was begun, it wasn't seen as wastage. > It's only with hindsight that we know this.
BBC staff joked that DMI stood for "Don't Mention It". So the fact it was a disaster was known about for a while.
> As for spending the money on developing technology like this, it's not the BBC's job to > preserve tapes they don't own, even if they own the intellectual rights to the material stored on them.
The BBC spent many decades developing technology for all sorts of things. If they have access to the tapes and own the IP there is every reason why they could work on technology.
> Should they spend lots of money to get slightly better copies off of a handful of tapes that are > never going to be of broadcast(able) quality, nor of any interest to 99.9% of the population?
It depends on the programme. They can easily spend £1m on a one hour programme. If it's a Steptoe and Son which people will watch for the next 50 years and will pull in respectable ratings over and over I would say there's every reason to spend some money on it. The technology can be offered as a service to other broadcasters.
The term broadcast quality makes me laugh. Were those 405 line telerecordings of Doctor Who that were shown on BBC2 in 1980 really "broadcast quality"? Or the Laurel and Hardy films that were probably 15 generations down from the negative? I can you show you transfers of Super 8 home movies done using a projector and DSLR that probably look better on screen than dupey horribly scratched 1970s 16mm from The Goodies. BBC iPlayer in SD is virtually VHS quality and Freeview SD is little better.
A 1981 colour studio clip on VHS was returned to the BBC for a BBC 4 programme. Great lengths were gone to at their request so they could have the original tape for best quality. Imagine the surprise on broadcast to see a hackneyed "old film" effect had been added to the clip which was now mysteriously black and white too.
I agree no one wants to watch a whole programme of poor quality material. But for a short insert... I would say the picture jumping isn't acceptable but "fuzzy" is.
> 1) In terms of using the money spent on the Digital Media Initiative: Imagine the > reaction that would have occurred if the BBC had spent that large an amount of money > on behalf of dubbing a relatively small number of tapes, many of which contain ITV content, > and in a circumstance where a much cheaper way of doing so has been in use for decades. > It would have made the negative reactions to the failure of the Digital Media Initiative look tame.
When has that ever bothered the BBC? And I say, what is a huge sum of money when it comes to television? The revised budget for the new Eastenders set is now £86.7m. It's already £27m over budget. A crappy past-its-sell-by-date soap that people would probably still watch if it didn't have any outdoor scenes.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by RWels on Jan 10, 2019 0:38:56 GMT
The term broadcast quality makes me laugh. Were those 405 line telerecordings of Doctor Who that were shown on BBC2 in 1980 really "broadcast quality"? Or the Laurel and Hardy films that were probably 15 generations down from the negative? I can you show you transfers of Super 8 home movies done using a projector and DSLR that probably look better on screen than dupey horribly scratched 1970s 16mm from The Goodies. BBC iPlayer in SD is virtually VHS quality and Freeview SD is little better. But we're not living in 1980 anymore (The Goodies haven't been on the BBC for ages) and people have huge screens in their living rooms today. I hope you're not slowly shuffling towards that "everything was better in the past" sketch again. (Now if you had spoken against forcing everything that should be 4:3 into widescreen, I'd be forced to agree with you.) Are telerecordings any "line" b.t.w.? They're film. They have a frame rate, but there the comparisons with PAL or NTSC stop, AFAIK.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Walsh on Jan 10, 2019 6:44:31 GMT
The term broadcast quality makes me laugh. Were those 405 line telerecordings of Doctor Who that were shown on BBC2 in 1980 really "broadcast quality"? Or the Laurel and Hardy films that were probably 15 generations down from the negative? I can you show you transfers of Super 8 home movies done using a projector and DSLR that probably look better on screen than dupey horribly scratched 1970s 16mm from The Goodies. BBC iPlayer in SD is virtually VHS quality and Freeview SD is little better. But we're not living in 1980 anymore (The Goodies haven't been on the BBC for ages) and people have huge screens in their living rooms today. I hope you're not slowly shuffling towards that "everything was better in the past" sketch again. (Now if you had spoken against forcing everything that should be 4:3 into widescreen, I'd be forced to agree with you.) Are telerecordings any "line" b.t.w.? They're film. They have a frame rate, but there the comparisons with PAL or NTSC stop, AFAIK. So who are you recovering these tapes for then?? Who?? Not the public and their roast dinner in a pill 4KHD world. Not the BBC or ITV unless it's a comedy show they can sell to one of the digital channels so they can have Johnny Vegas or Alexander Armstrong talk over. Who? Actually don't answer that....we all know. All of us distrustful fans only waiting to "steal it online". We know.
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Jan 10, 2019 10:32:18 GMT
Are telerecordings any "line" b.t.w.? They're film. They have a frame rate, but there the comparisons with PAL or NTSC stop, AFAIK. All things being equal, a 405 line film recording will be fuzzier than a 625 line film recording, because the line structure of the original video puts a limit on the picture definition. 188 line home video recordings are always going to look fuzzy even if the picture is stabilised, cleaned up, and the image stepping effect is filtered out. But I'd be happy to watch "Tooth And Claw", "Zokko", or "Fury From The Deep" in this format. It's better than a blank screen!
|
|