|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Dec 4, 2018 9:21:16 GMT
Despite being told otherwise, I maintain that the filmed episodes of The Avengers (i.e. Diana Rigg episodes onwards) were filmed at 24 frames per second - so they could be adjusted to slot into U.S. 30fps TV - and were simply broadcast at 25fps in Britain. I have created copies running at 24fps, and the stars' voices certainly sound more natural.
I believe this applies to other series as well - for example, Gideon's Way (known as Gideon C.I.D. in America).
As it was American money which enabled The Avengers to branch out into full location filming, it would appear reasonable that they were able to dictate many of the rules.
Any info, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Dec 4, 2018 13:06:43 GMT
IIRC the Diana Rigg episode had 3 versions, one for the American market, one for British screening & a general export version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Dec 4, 2018 13:39:11 GMT
Yes, Richard, I'm sure you're correct. But they didn't film each episode three times, did they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Dec 4, 2018 13:53:53 GMT
Despite being told otherwise, I maintain that the filmed episodes of The Avengers (i.e. Diana Rigg episodes onwards) were filmed at 24 frames per second - so they could be adjusted to slot into U.S. 30fps TV - and were simply broadcast at 25fps in Britain. I have created copies running at 24fps, and the stars' voices certainly sound more natural. I believe this applies to other series as well - for example, Gideon's Way (known as Gideon C.I.D. in America). As it was American money which enabled The Avengers to branch out into full location filming, it would appear reasonable that they were able to dictate many of the rules. Any info, anyone? 35mm 24fps remains the standard world wide running speed. The Avengers was escaping the studio anyway as a potential for world sales.They had at their hand much of the experienced 'film' crew from their recent The Human Jungle show. America didn't pay for the making of the first Rigg series..why would they risk money on an unknown to them foreign show? although they obviously bought the show once they had seen how good the episodes the were and were climbing their ratings. The US later 'pre' bought the Thorson and Rigg colour episodes which meant the producers had the cash before they had shot a frame. What seems to be have been created over the years is this thing about a reliance on America ...ITC shows for example were not that successful at all in the US..Gideon got a few episodes shown. The Baron got just 13 episodes shown so did The Champions, and Dept S and Jason King was not shown there at all(unless an obscure showing many years later)..even Randall & Hopkirk had to wait 5 years for a syndicated screening..as for Thunderbirds! The Saint remains ITC's most successful outing in the States and even that was a syndication.The last ITC show that involved American money was 'Court Martial' and Lew Grade said after that experience every ITC production would be self funded. . |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Dec 4, 2018 22:45:10 GMT
Yes, Richard, I'm sure you're correct. But they didn't film each episode three times, did they? Not it was just 3 different edits of each episode. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Dec 5, 2018 10:15:02 GMT
Peter - Thanks for that information. I was always under the impression that British TV was more successful in the States at that time than it actually was.
Richard - Yes, that's my point. And I'm glad they did edit them differently; those dreadful little "Mrs Peel, we're needed" bits I felt were completely out of place, and were mostly absent from the episodes shown in Britain. (While creating the 24fps versions for myself, they were the first bits to disappear!)
Thanks to both for your responses.
|
|
|
|
Post by ifryer on Dec 5, 2018 10:17:59 GMT
Yes, Richard, I'm sure you're correct. But they didn't film each episode three times, did they? Not it was just 3 different edits of each episode. Crikey, that's interesting. So which versions are we seeing on the DVD/Bluray releases. How different were the edits? |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Dec 5, 2018 17:16:10 GMT
I'm pretty certain the colour Rigg episodes were the same in both countries, except for the above-mentioned little intro and outro pieces.
As much as I love the series, the scene where Mrs Peel stops at the traffic lights, displaying "Mrs Peel, we're needed", is nothing short of ridiculous. But perhaps the Americans went for that sort of thing....
I DO love the series, I really do, but....
What was the continuity man doing in one of my favourite episodes, "Murdersville"? Hilarious how Mrs Peel's clothes keep changing while she and her companion are driving! Mind you, I saw it in monochrome when it was first shown, so we didn't notice it then.
Incidentally, a few weeks ago my wife and I spent a few hours in the village where that episode was shot. Very little has changed - the most beautiful village I've ever seen!!!
Oh, and it's nice to know some old traditions survive - like someone who still says crikey! lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Dec 6, 2018 11:14:49 GMT
.. I DO love the series, I really do, but.... What was the continuity man doing in one of my favourite episodes, "Murdersville"? Hilarious how Mrs Peel's clothes keep changing while she and her companion are driving! Mind you, I saw it in monochrome when it was first shown, so we didn't notice it then. Not actually a continuity error I think (and something that obviously was not so called restored) This appears to be a colour separation overlay fault found on early colour productions ..you may have heard of 'green screen' today which they use to combine two pictures say a background road and the inside of a car.. well in the early days of colour they used a blue screen due to the limitations of the technology....blue screen setting was very time consuming (time not always available on fast moving TV shows) the shade of blue had to be absolutely perfect in every way and even the light hitting it had to be perfectly set- otherwise it would either produce a blue fuzz at the edge of the combining pictures (seen on old Star Trek prints) or would cause certain colours to bleed and mix to another shade .. So although I think Emma was actually wearing the same colour outfit throught, it came out a different hue when they did a studio process shot. ..Very easy (in restoration terms)to rectify these days and makes you wonder about a so called restoration unlike Star Trek which now looks like it's from the 21st Century. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Dec 7, 2018 16:25:31 GMT
OK, so a colour separation overlay fault - it still spoiled the continuity.
Mind you, I'm glad they left it as is - I like the new DVD productions to remain as faithful as possible to the originals - even if glaring mistakes are sometimes perpetuated in the process!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Dec 8, 2018 0:35:55 GMT
OK, so a colour separation overlay fault - it still spoiled the continuity. Mind you, I'm glad they left it as is - I like the new DVD productions to remain as faithful as possible to the originals - even if glaring mistakes are sometimes perpetuated in the process! Oh I didn't mean to annoy you just to point out that continuity girls' responsibilities just covered the shoot and not post production ..they had access to 'Add a Vision' which was videotape playback but this was not sensitive enough for colour playback. I have to also disagree about restoring for today's audience,IMHO all those faults and technology limitations are distractions to the plot. Star Trek (as an example) can now be watched without breaking the thread of the plot by seeing wires pulling alien craft type of thing, which young people today might find laughable and not bother to watch with further enthusiasm, thus depriving a revenue stream which keeps the programme alive and in a healthy condition. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Dec 8, 2018 12:17:01 GMT
First, I'm not annoyed - I've been very interested reading your posts, Peter.
While I fully respect and understanbd your views about restoration, I suppose I'm just a purist where old TV is concerned; I like things to be kept as close to the original as possible. I know many others take your view; we just have different opinions, that's all. But I much appreciate your feedback.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph Rose on Dec 8, 2018 13:10:39 GMT
First, I'm not annoyed - I've been very interested reading your posts, Peter. While I fully respect and understand your views about restoration, I suppose I'm just a purist where old TV is concerned; I like things to be kept as close to the original as possible. I know many others take your view; we just have different opinions, that's all. But I much appreciate your feedback. As a Historian, I too like things kept as close to original as possible. Why I tend to take revisionist history with a grain of salt. How are we to learn as a culture, if we cannot learn from our past, be it good or bad? This is why I like the original versions to be included if any revisions are used. Exactly the way Star Trek and past Dr Who releases have been. This way I can enjoy both versions if I choose. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Dec 8, 2018 15:10:21 GMT
First, I'm not annoyed - I've been very interested reading your posts, Peter. While I fully respect and understanbd your views about restoration, I suppose I'm just a purist where old TV is concerned; I like things to be kept as close to the original as possible. I know many others take your view; we just have different opinions, that's all. But I much appreciate your feedback. I do tend to ramble but it's only enthusiasm. This site use to have lots of others that would add their stance and knowledge to whatever queries you might have... but they seem to be keeping a low profile lately. |
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Dec 9, 2018 4:24:16 GMT
Despite being told otherwise, I maintain that the filmed episodes of The Avengers (i.e. Diana Rigg episodes onwards) were filmed at 24 frames per second - so they could be adjusted to slot into U.S. 30fps TV - and were simply broadcast at 25fps in Britain. I have created copies running at 24fps, and the stars' voices certainly sound more natural. I believe this applies to other series as well - for example, Gideon's Way (known as Gideon C.I.D. in America). As it was American money which enabled The Avengers to branch out into full location filming, it would appear reasonable that they were able to dictate many of the rules. Any info, anyone? 35mm 24fps remains the standard world wide running speed. Not for television in countries which had the PAL system. 35mm film has been used for television in the UK probably since TV began in 1932. That's just a couple of years after 24fps began to be used for sound films in the cinema. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_movie_camerasIf you check the table on this page, the section headlined "movement" you'll see that every 35mm movie camera listed had variable speed. The Arriflex 35-2C is one that would have been around when they shot The Avengers and it can run at anything between 5 and 80 fps. So 25fps would be no problem. In fact it's quite possible that they undercranked action scenes that didn't have dialogue to speed them up slightly eg. shot at 20fps. Unless we can find a clock face with a minute hand in one of the episodes there's really no way to know what speed was used mainly. To fill a 50 minute slot on ITV shooting at 24fps and then transmitting at 25fps they would effectively have to shoot a 52 minute programme because the action would run 4% faster when screened in the UK. That sounds a bit awkward. Whereas if they filmed at 25fps they would only need to shoot 50 minutes of action and it would be easier to time it accurately for the ITV slot. And it would still run for 52 minutes in the US unless they re-cut it to reduce the length. |
|
