Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2003 10:13:34 GMT
Andy actually the frame rate on the film camera is neither here nor there, you can film it at 24/25/18/16, obvious the less fps the more juddery it becomes. The important thing for filming a tv screen is to ensure the camera shutter is in sync with the television frame. This is either done by ensuring the film camera and monitor are recieving the same sync pulses, or in the old days by manually adjusting thru the viewfinder(obviously a reflex viewer) the camera shutter until the black bar on the monitor is shoved off screen.
The other thing to mention on some of these suspect TRs is the sound track which sounds rather ghostly. This has been atributed to the limtitations of 16mm analogue optical sound. If this is so, then they would all sound like it, but these ghostly tracks sound very much like VHF 405 line AM sound to me.
I am not neccesarily saying these TRs were done at home, but by people with access to camera equipment, who perhaps felt something was worth recording and at the time there were no other means of achieving it.
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Oct 17, 2003 13:09:50 GMT
isn't there a few audio clips of this bit? I seem to remember one on the 30th aniversary docu
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 17, 2003 14:05:58 GMT
John, in reply:
"Andy actually the frame rate on the film camera is neither here nor there, you can film it at 24/25/18/16, obvious the less fps the more juddery it becomes. The important thing for filming a tv screen is to ensure the camera shutter is in sync with the television frame"
When I wrote that earlier posting, I had mentioned that it is possible to use 16 2/3 speed without synchronisation. That was why the BBC used it as an easy method of making recordings.
I went on to mention that any other speed requires some form of sychronisation.
With commercial films requiring 24 fps (or 25 for tv), that threshold presented problems as regards capturing all the picture information on a 50 field image. "The other thing to mention on some of these suspect TRs is the sound track which sounds rather ghostly. This has been atributed to the limtitations of 16mm analogue optical sound. If this is so, then they would all sound like it, but these ghostly tracks sound very much like VHF 405 line AM sound to me."
Well...asking again, please can you give examples of tv recordings you think are in this category?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2003 17:02:23 GMT
Its one of those things Andy that you have be actually watching it without enjoying the programme for it to make a mark in your memory. As you have a collection i would ask you to look for these points in identifying an 'amateur' TR.
word captions will be not be straight or level.
the true size of the scan is wrong, and captions are overshot, this is where the camera has been zoomed into the picture.
corner focusing maybe very obviously fuzzy compared to the centre of the picture.
vertical lines will be rather rubbery due to the instability of 1950/60s domestic television timebase circuits compared to professional euipment.
line structure apparent
washed out contrast.
compare all that with for example a 62 edition of Morecambe & Wise done on a proper machine.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Briddon on Oct 17, 2003 19:09:00 GMT
That's fascinating! From the footage you've recovered (and seen) - are there any studio inserts? For example, is the 'one small step sequence' intact with the Burke commentary? I have seen both recovered films. The only studio insert is the 22 seconds mentioned in the original article. It is of James Burke signing off at the end of a transmission, following the landing and IIRC mentioning what the astronauts will be doing before the next tx (Patrick Moore is also glimpsed). It is a small segment, but the only remaining studio footage that I am aware of. None of the 2 reels has Armstrong's first steps on the moon, which led us to speculate that this footage may still be out there somewhere, assuming it was recorded, given that it was in the early hours of the morning (and whoever filmed it may not have had access to the recording equipment at that time of course...)
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 27, 2003 20:46:34 GMT
Just in quick reply....
"Its one of those things Andy that you have be actually watching it without enjoying the programme for it to make a mark in your memory. As you have a collection i would ask you to look for these points in identifying an 'amateur' TR."
OK let's go...
'word captions will be not be straight or level.'
present on some BBC and ITV films as the original graphics were going up the hill!!!
"the true size of the scan is wrong, and captions are overshot, this is where the camera has been zoomed into the picture."
Reduction prints from 35mm show this cropping as do film recordings of film recordings!
"corner focusing maybe very obviously fuzzy compared to the centre of the picture."
Some of these defects are due to camera problems.
"vertical lines will be rather rubbery due to the instability of 1950/60s domestic television timebase circuits compared to professional euipment."
Or more likely early Ampex machines used as a source for film recording.
"line structure apparent"
Supressed Frame recordings or no spot wobble.
"washed out contrast."
Poor dupes, usually neg taken from positive print.
"compare all that with for example a 62 edition of Morecambe & Wise done on a proper machine."
I wouldn't call them anything special. Dicky Howett took some off screen 16mm footage of that series and it looks almost as good as the real recordings!
|
|
|
Post by John G on Oct 27, 2003 21:51:56 GMT
OK Andy , your absolutely right and i stand corrected. Luckily you managed to sort it all out .Thanks. Please accept my apologies for dragging this thread away from its original enquiry.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 28, 2003 23:07:21 GMT
It's not for me to say that I'm 'right' and you may have been 'wrong'. It is entirely possible that 'home recordings with sound were made'. However, there is a lot of physical evidence to suggest that professional recordings were often faulty. Without you giving specific examples of recordings thought to be home made, an argument cannot be extended further.
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Oct 31, 2003 15:57:15 GMT
remember as well that sound film is twice as exspensive as silent and that a great deal of film would be needed even for 1/2 hour seperate sound or "wild sound" would be much cheaper either a synchronised or an un-synchronised tape recorder, it is possible for the short times stated above. these could be either professional or private recordings, but again without having seen them it is difficult to say, the moon landing was very live and perhaps mistakes were made in setting up a tele recorder and there would be no time to stop the machine and correct a setting mistake without missing something important
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 31, 2003 16:06:29 GMT
'remember as well that sound film is twice as exspensive as silent '
really - since when ;-)
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Oct 31, 2003 16:30:51 GMT
'remember as well that sound film is twice as exspensive as silent ' really - since when ;-) did you wink at me ? <(:-<))= there, wig moustache and goatee beard I can't remember how much it was now but at least 1/2 as much again at least with super8
|
|
|
Post by Andy Henderson on Oct 31, 2003 23:58:02 GMT
Super 8mm sound is out of the argument as it wasn't available in 1969!
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Nov 3, 2003 16:15:10 GMT
just standard 8 then, this was available in sound as was single 8 but i don't know when that was available
|
|
|
Post by Pete 1530 on Dec 10, 2003 17:54:31 GMT
are there clangers up there
|
|
|
Post by William Martin on Dec 12, 2003 11:54:43 GMT
yes
|
|