|
Post by Rich Hughes on Oct 14, 2018 20:17:19 GMT
This is interesting, especially as it's episode 1. When The Aztecs SE DVD came out in 2013 I was surprised how good the first episode looked as on the first DVD release there is a really bad stratch on the picture for the first 5 minutes or so. This was before I knew anything about the search or any of the rumours about ME's being found, and yet I thought that the BBC might have found a better print somewhere somehow. T.I.E.A have updated their website... www.tiea.co.uk/index.htm... and shown on one of the pages is this image of a film can of The Aztecs - View AttachmentView AttachmentIs this a stock photo? Does anybody recognize this film can? If it's a new image, then surely this is a tease/easter egg/spoiler that the wind is indeed blowing in the right direction. For if one is to find missing episodes, then you are bound to find episodes that already exist. For example, a discovered film can of Marco Polo might well be sitting on the shelf quite naturally alongside The Aztecs! If this is a stock photo/film can known to exist, then apologies in advance, and please continue on with any weekend celebrations/benders post-One Show...
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Oct 14, 2018 21:01:08 GMT
This is interesting, especially as it's episode 1. When The Aztecs SE DVD came out in 2013 I was surprised how good the first episode looked as on the first DVD release there is a really bad stratch on the picture for the first 5 minutes or so. This was before I knew anything about the search or any of the rumours about ME's being found, and yet I thought that the BBC might have found a better print somewhere somehow. The Aztecs exists on telerecording negatives which are the best available source possible, so any prints turned up are not going to be of any use - they are at least 1 generation down. The SE DVD looks much better as there is an 11 year gap between restorations.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Tipple on Oct 15, 2018 8:09:15 GMT
This is interesting, especially as it's episode 1. When The Aztecs SE DVD came out in 2013 I was surprised how good the first episode looked as on the first DVD release there is a really bad stratch on the picture for the first 5 minutes or so. This was before I knew anything about the search or any of the rumours about ME's being found, and yet I thought that the BBC might have found a better print somewhere somehow. The Aztecs exists on telerecording negatives which are the best available source possible, so any prints turned up are not going to be of any use - they are at least 1 generation down. The SE DVD looks much better as there is an 11 year gap between restorations. Not strictly true. I believe the first few minutes of episode one are from a lower generation copy as the telerecording is damaged? Also, didn't the "Next Episode" caption have to be removed from "The Day of Darkness"? And there's a slight cut during the scene of Ian in the flooded tunnel beneath the Tomb of Yetaxa, again possibly due to film damage.
|
|
Simon Collis
Member
I have started to dream of lost things
Posts: 536
|
Post by Simon Collis on Oct 15, 2018 10:15:18 GMT
It was apparently taken about 10 years ago with a Fujifilm camera, for whatever that's worth. Then all we have is someone updating their website, thinking "hmm, let's post some relevant pictures to make this post more interesting" and doing so. In itself, it means nothing - it's essentially eye candy to draw your attention to the words.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Oct 15, 2018 12:01:58 GMT
The Aztecs exists on telerecording negatives which are the best available source possible, so any prints turned up are not going to be of any use - they are at least 1 generation down. The SE DVD looks much better as there is an 11 year gap between restorations. Not strictly true. I believe the first few minutes of episode one are from a lower generation copy as the telerecording is damaged? Also, didn't the "Next Episode" caption have to be removed from "The Day of Darkness"? And there's a slight cut during the scene of Ian in the flooded tunnel beneath the Tomb of Yetaxa, again possibly due to film damage. Correct, however I glossed over that as another print still doesn't assist the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Daniels on Oct 17, 2018 10:09:09 GMT
Thanks, Charles, bang on topic! It's perfectly reasonable to ask if the can is one Phil found, and if so, where did it come from? I think an alternative explanation is that, in 2008, Phil got a tour of some BBC facilities and took these two photographs (seemingly within a half hour of one another). The equipment may indeed be something that's available to him, but not TIEA property? There's another shot of more of that same room, taken 12 seconds earlier. It doesn't include the close up of the same machines, but it does include quite a few elements which would make me personally exclude it as being a typical BBC facility. I don't want to hot-link the image, but it's there on the site, on the main page, at the bottom of the main page itself. So it seems to me we have a multiple photos of a facility which is geared toward rare/obsolete format machines. I recognise lots of the models there, and wish I had some of those machines myself! And from the other exif data, we know that this Aztec can is within half an hour of this facility, if not at the same location.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Daniels on Oct 17, 2018 10:21:02 GMT
Since EXIF data has been brought up, just want to ask a silly question, which should probably be obvious, but I've never really messed about with EXIF data before and don't know anything about it
So the question I have, just to make sure I'm getting this right
In the pictures of the machines we've got
Date and Time (Original) 2008:02:01 05:02:51
XMP Toolkit Adobe XMP Core 5.3-c011 66.145661, 2012/02/06-14:56:27
So the Date and Time original is when the photo was originally taken.
But then, the XMP Toolkit, that's saying that on 2012/02/06, someone took this original image and altered it in some way? Cropped it, re-sized it, compressed it, sharpened it -- did something to it on that date at that time? Yeah?
|
|
|
Post by Robbie Moubert on Oct 17, 2018 10:47:18 GMT
The 2008 date might just mean that that's the date the camera was set to.
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan Stanger on Oct 17, 2018 11:19:29 GMT
The 2008 date might just mean that that's the date the camera was set to. My old Sony Cyber-shot camera reverts to 01-01-2008 every time the battery expires.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Daniels on Oct 17, 2018 11:43:29 GMT
Okay so the date is useless, but the distances in time still look interesting to me. I looked at exifs and I see this
Date unknown, camera says all same day, time unknown, but I'll work out the break down in differences in time
Camera says picture 1 taken
3:55am A picture is taken of a room with blue storage units
4:41am (46 minutes later) - A picture is taken of a can for Aztecs 1
5:02am (19 minutes later) - A picture is taken of a room with vintage domestic equipment in great numbers
5:03am (12 seconds later) - A picture is taken of the professional VTR
The 5am pictures are visibly in the same building as the 3:55am picture, or at the very least a room with an identical ceiling style.
The most straightforward reading of this is that the 4 pictures were taken in 68 minute time span, seemingly within the same area from 3:55am to 5:03am
Two other candidates that strike me
Photo 1 was taken at location A Photo 2 was taken at Location B (which we know MUST BE within 19 minutes of Location A) This would mean that Location A was left shortly after the photo of the blue storage units being taken After taking the photo of the film can, the camera returned to Location A to take photos of playback equipment (Photos 3 and 4) This begs the question of why not just complete the photos at Location A, then move to Location B?
Or the other option
The camera was faulty/batteries died more than once, and the photos of the storage and playback facilities have no connection to the photo of the film can. This seems unlikely as the photographs are linked thematically. But could be countered that the person taking the photos might take many photos of these sorts of subjects. Colour me sceptical on this explanation.
Speculation: The barcode is an archival barcode. I would take a stab and translate it as "Morris 658th archive holding".
Assuming M srands for Morris, and the numbers began sequentially from 100001
M100658
But this is speculation gained solely from the context of the images on the website.
Note also that someone has applied masking tape over the instruction that the film can should be returned to the VT Library. Perhaps as it was obsolete?
|
|
|
Post by Charles Daniels on Oct 17, 2018 11:57:08 GMT
I'd also like to point out the obvious: The age of the label can be determined by the BBC logo - this label dates from the 1970s. If we are to assume that label stocks lasted a while, the BBC has been through 3 more corporate logo revisions since that logo. In other words, this can't be something that Phil has found. To my eye, that looks a lot more like the first slanted logo, which was used from 1963 to 1971. Are you saying it's the rounded off logo used from 1971-1992? Look at the lettering, that looks to me like BBC is in a clear empty box. And the edges are very hard. The rounded off logo, is not only more rounded as the same suggests, but BBC is in a filled in box.
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Oct 17, 2018 12:42:37 GMT
I'd also like to point out the obvious: The age of the label can be determined by the BBC logo - this label dates from the 1970s. If we are to assume that label stocks lasted a while, the BBC has been through 3 more corporate logo revisions since that logo. In other words, this can't be something that Phil has found. To my eye, that looks a lot more like the first slanted logo, which was used from 1963 to 1971. Are you saying it's the rounded off logo used from 1971-1992? Look at the lettering, that looks to me like BBC is in a clear empty box. And the edges are very hard. The rounded off logo, is not only more rounded as the same suggests, but BBC is in a filled in box. No, I meant the boxy logo. I wasn't going into too much detail as I don't think there's anything here anyway. On second glance at the photo, it says faintly at the bottom 'Please return to TV and Film Library Windmill Rd'. That is where the archive used to be before moving to Perivale in 2011. So that print was from the BBC archives. You can tell from the ageing on the labels that they're quite old too. Nothing to see here.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,854
|
Post by RWels on Oct 17, 2018 12:47:41 GMT
He's gone? I guess the forum won't be the same without him!
|
|
|
Post by andyeves on Oct 17, 2018 15:07:00 GMT
He's gone? I guess the forum won't be the same without him! Yes I noticed he'd become theLost106 (actually 97) before being annotated as a "deleted member". Come back, Ed! All is forgiven! This forum won't be the same without you ...
|
|
|
Post by charles drummel on Oct 17, 2018 23:48:31 GMT
Two other candidates that strike me Photo 1 was taken at location A Photo 2 was taken at Location B (which we know MUST BE within 19 minutes of Location A) This would mean that Location A was left shortly after the photo of the blue storage units being taken After taking the photo of the film can, the camera returned to Location A to take photos of playback equipment (Photos 3 and 4) This begs the question of why not just complete the photos at Location A, then move to Location B? Or the other option The camera was faulty/batteries died more than once, and the photos of the storage and playback facilities have no connection to the photo of the film can. This seems unlikely as the photographs are linked thematically. But could be countered that the person taking the photos might take many photos of these sorts of subjects. Colour me sceptical on this explanation. Speculation: The barcode is an archival barcode. I would take a stab and translate it as "Morris 658th archive holding". Assuming M srands for Morris, and the numbers began sequentially from 100001 M100658 But this is speculation gained solely from the context of the images on the website. You've made some good points, Charles. Do you know for certain if this "M" labeling is not standard? I also think that you may be right that the 'absolute' time stamp might be inaccurate (not everyone keeps their clocks set), while the relative stamps are perhaps more reliable. However, in 2016, Paul Vanezis said, Which fits in perfectly with 2008. Here's a video of Windmill Road. The start time I have the video link set to shows one of the same angles as Phil's photo on his main page. In fact, I thought he might have lifted it from there until I took a closer look at the carts in front! youtu.be/S3Z2djrAW2M?t=22So, I would suggest that all of these photos from the Fujifilm camera may be from Phil's visit to Windmill Road in 2008, as described by Paul.
|
|