|
Post by garygraham on Feb 13, 2021 6:06:08 GMT
Weren't programmes sometimes telerecorded straight onto film and then the film was broadcast? So there never was an interlaced video version. Was that ever the case with Doctor Who?
My experience has been that I used to be super sensitive to variations in picture quality: jumpy or smeary NTSC conversions with poor colour or telerecordings rather than interlaced video. But, after two decades of online video I'm much more tolerant. I've always liked the "live" look of video for studio productions, so I like VidFire.
|
|
Ace St.John
Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 139
|
Post by Ace St.John on Feb 13, 2021 7:41:43 GMT
Weren't programmes sometimes telerecorded straight onto film and then the film was broadcast? So there never was an interlaced video version. Was that ever the case with Doctor Who? Yes. Power of the Daleks Episode 6 was done this way because of how many edits were needed and the amount of action. A live feed from the gallery which was linked to the multicamera setup in tv studio was telerecorded directly onto 35mm film. Then edited later. I've always liked the "live" look of video for studio productions, so I like VidFire. I like the VidFire effect when done on sequences that would have originally had that video source look. I also like the look that telerecorded video has on film. If it was rediscovered I think Power 6 could be controversial for some as to whether it should be VidFired or not but to me it is a no brainer. It only originated onto the 35mm film medium from electronic camera source and was broadcast that way. So on that one I wouldn't see the justification for vidfiring.
|
|
|
Post by stevegerald on Feb 13, 2021 8:24:46 GMT
If it was rediscovered I think Power 6 could be controversial for some as to whether it should be VidFired or not but to me it is a no brainer. It only originated onto the 35mm film medium from electronic camera source and was broadcast that way. So on that one I wouldn't see the justification for vidfiring. Power 6 wasn't the only one, there are some existing episodes that were broadcast the same way and they were also VidFIRE'd.
|
|
|
Post by brianfretwell on Feb 13, 2021 16:34:07 GMT
Of course what you saw when it originally transmitted would depend on if you saw it in the UK from VT or from a film telerecording abroad.
And, of course Planet of Giants 3 edited from originally episodes 3 and 4 would be another seen from film way everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Feb 13, 2021 21:07:28 GMT
In the 1960s TV screens were so small and at such a distance that the extra smoothness of 50i would barely have been apparent in many cases. A 20 inch TV viewed from 10 feet away is roughly equivalent to a 4 inch wide video window on a laptop at normal viewing distance. Now some of us are watching 7 foot wide images from a video projector at the same distance as that 405 line telly so it matters a whole lot more.
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Feb 17, 2021 6:54:57 GMT
Of course what you saw when it originally transmitted would depend on if you saw it in the UK from VT or from a film telerecording abroad. That's right. Viewers in Australia would have seen shows made from 1968-9 at high definition on 625-line film recordings, whereas viewers in Britain would see a cleaner video image, but converted down to the lower 405-line definition for broadcast on BBC1. However, considering how crummy the ABC's telecine equipment was in those days, the difference wouldn't have been that obvious. That's one thing that use to bug me; you'd go out and shoot a piece on 16mm and it would look beautiful projected in the dubbing suite, but muddy when broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Feb 17, 2021 21:07:37 GMT
DOnt feel bad I can actually see your point of view. I remember seeing "The Mind of Evil" in color in Los Angeles back in 1976, when I saw it again in the early 1980's it was so hard to watch those faded black and white film prints to the point I could not enjoy that perticular serial (to be fair the prints sent to Lionheart were far worse for that serial than some of the others that were supplied in black and white
|
|
|
Post by Dale Rumbold on Mar 5, 2021 20:00:29 GMT
In the 1960s TV screens were so small and at such a distance that the extra smoothness of 50i would barely have been apparent in many cases. As someone who was a child in the 60s and saw (almost ...) every Dr Who episode from the very beginning, I disagree 100% with that statement! I can remember, at around 5/6 years old, asking my parents why some bits of Dr Who looked 'clearer' (the studio shots) than other bits (the film inserts) and it taking some time to get to the bottom of it. CRT screens were SO superior to modern LCD/LED/PLASMA screens in the crispness and quality of the image that they produced, especially in B&W, that the difference between what we would now call 50i and 25p was VERY noticeable : current HD TVs only just give the same level of 'sharpness' as 1960s 405 line sets did in SD.
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Mar 5, 2021 21:54:00 GMT
In the 1960s TV screens were so small and at such a distance that the extra smoothness of 50i would barely have been apparent in many cases. As someone who was a child in the 60s and saw (almost ...) every Dr Who episode from the very beginning, I disagree 100% with that statement! I can remember, at around 5/6 years old, asking my parents why some bits of Dr Who looked 'clearer' (the studio shots) than other bits (the film inserts) and it taking some time to get to the bottom of it. CRT screens were SO superior to modern LCD/LED/PLASMA screens in the crispness and quality of the image that they produced, especially in B&W, that the difference between what we would now call 50i and 25p was VERY noticeable : current HD TVs only just give the same level of 'sharpness' as 1960s 405 line sets did in SD. Well said & 100% accurate. 405 line b/w was very good quality when it was the main broadcast standard & not standard converted 625 line colour into b/w with most of the contrast detail removed.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Mar 10, 2021 1:22:57 GMT
As someone who was a child in the 60s and saw (almost ...) every Dr Who episode from the very beginning, I disagree 100% with that statement! I can remember, at around 5/6 years old, asking my parents why some bits of Dr Who looked 'clearer' (the studio shots) than other bits (the film inserts) and it taking some time to get to the bottom of it. CRT screens were SO superior to modern LCD/LED/PLASMA screens in the crispness and quality of the image that they produced, especially in B&W, that the difference between what we would now call 50i and 25p was VERY noticeable : current HD TVs only just give the same level of 'sharpness' as 1960s 405 line sets did in SD. Well said & 100% accurate. 405 line b/w was very good quality when it was the main broadcast standard & not standard converted 625 line colour into b/w with most of the contrast detail removed. But however good it was, and though you may have noticed the change, a 405 line screen really can't compare with a projected 720p image that is six feet wide with the viewer sitting at the same distance. So any change in quality will be THAT much more apparent. I do agree with you that analogue TV was surprisingly good compared even to HD digital. Even VHS projected can look astonishingly good and I reckon an ordinary person walking in might think it is "HD".
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Mar 10, 2021 6:55:56 GMT
Going digital was always about making better use of the bandwidth rather than improving quality whatever the marketing said.
|
|
|
Post by Señor pinguino on Mar 10, 2021 9:08:37 GMT
Going digital was always about making better use of the bandwidth rather than improving quality whatever the marketing said. Digital video was only a way to being a new market, and make More money, can be Good for homevideo recordings and archivation, and for low-cost amateur artists, but in profesional productions is a mess that have killed cinema.
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Mar 10, 2021 11:56:38 GMT
Fair comment
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Mar 10, 2021 21:37:16 GMT
DOnt feel bad I can actually see your point of view. I remember seeing "The Mind of Evil" in color in Los Angeles back in 1976, when I saw it again in the early 1980's it was so hard to watch those faded black and white film prints to the point I could not enjoy that perticular serial (to be fair the prints sent to Lionheart were far worse for that serial than some of the others that were supplied in black and white B/W film does not actually fade but can look that way thru multi generations in the analog world.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Mar 10, 2021 22:21:57 GMT
It looked terrible far worse than the black and white prints supplied for "The Silurians", "Ambassadors of Death", "Terror of the Autons" and "The Daemons". For some reason when the tele recoding's for MOE were produced quality assurance must have been taking a holiday.
I mean had Australia not rejected it on content ground they might have said the quality of the prints supplied were terrible. Any one in the know about these things have any idea why this story looked so much worse than there stable mates?
With the Commonwealth countries rejecting the story the black and white film prints one would assume were the ones that were returned from Saudi Arabia and they were sitting on the shelf from 1971 till 79 when the Saudi's purchased it.
|
|