VidFIRE

[Troy Walters]

Hi all. I've only just found out yesterday that there was a computer program developed by Peter Finklestone that can make 25 frames/sec film recordings look like fluid moving 50 fields/sec video which has been applied to those recently found B&W kinescope recorded Dad's Army shows and to a few Doctor Who shows of the 60s. The description of how this program works is on this page www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/vidfire.htm .

I was stoked as I was wondering if any such programs were developed.

I assume this topic has been brought up in the past but I have a number of questions regarding it and a few things to add.

Now some questions about the applications of VidFIRE. I know they've already done Dad's Army and Dr Who, I was wondering if BBC have tried using this program with their earliest TV shows from the late 1940s and early/mid 50s prior to the existence of 2" quad tape??? It would be unreal to see a kinescope recorded TV show shot with B&W orthicon cameras dating say 1947 being put through VidFIRE resulting in fluid moving video looking like how it would of when going out live!!! An early show I strongly recommend they VidFIRE is Hancock's Half Hour as it's popular on the UKTV channel and would look fantastic in video mode. Also the 60s Top Of The Pops shows that only exist in kinescope film format should be videoised too. And they should SERIOUSLY consider sprucing up those few Goodies episodes that exist only on kinescope film too!!!

Also I was wondering if this program has been used in other countries like USA and Australia and other countries by any chance???

USA was obviously the first to use VTRs, 1956 for B&W and 1958 for colour, though many of these early tapes were overdubbed in the 60s. So they've got a LOT of kinescope films from 1946 to 1960 which need to be videoised to look like the original broadcast to bring back the original LIVE feeling to them instead of them looking like movies. It would be really cool to see the earliest surviving colour kinescope film TV shows (which RCA TK-40/41 colour studio cameras were used) put through VidFIRE and made to look as close to the original quality as possible with the cool fluid video movement feel to it as if if you were gonna watch it live back in the 50s on a RCA CT-100 or CTC model colour TV set!!! A good one to do if it still exist on colour film is the 1954 parade celebrating the first day of colour TV in America which were shot with TK-40 cameras. Also there's plenty of B&W shows that need to be videoised too, some really good shows to videoise is the Ed Sullivan Shows of the 50s and American Bandstand.

Now with Australian shows, I'm pretty sure most of our archive material from 1956 to 1974 prior to the colour exist on kinescope films though a lot of 2" quad recordings of shows still exist, some dating as early as 1960. Seeing that Rage on ABC has played GTK's and Hitscenes, I think it would be great to see those in their original live video format, ABC should videoise them with VidFIRE. Also the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne, any existing kinescope footage of it would be great to be videoised. And other shows on other networks like 6 O'Clock Rock, Bandstand, In Melbourne Tonight (especially the 1957-1960 ones), any existing Hey Hey It's Saturday kinescope films from 1971-1975, and others.

Lastly I wonder if VidFIRE has been used for movies that were initially done on film?? It would be really cool to see some 1930s B&W/colour movie videoised with VidFIRE to look like it was done with studio video cameras!!! I can just imagine the really colourful 1939 film "The Wizard Of Oz" being videoised to look like a TV show shot with say a RCA TK-41 orthicon studio colour camera or possibly a TK-44 plumbicon studio camera.

I really hope VidFIRE will be adopted worldwide because it will revolutionise restoration of kinescope film archive material close to the original live look as possible ;D. I know a lot of cleanup of the nicks and scratches in the films is required which is very time consuming but the results are worth it in the end ;D!!!

Cheers
Troy

[Deleted]

I'd love to see things like Hancock's Half Hour and The Likely Lads VidFIRED. Mind you, I'd like to see pretty much anything originally recorded on VT done, to get it looking as close to how it is supposed to look as possible.

Anything recorded on film should stay as film, though.

[Harry]

Hancock, Steptoe, all the single plays, lots more too. I love Vidfire. Best innovation to come along in ages.

[Insomniac]

Since no one else has answered some of your questions, I'll have a go!

As you say, Vidfire and similar processes can be used on film recordings of live broadcasts, but the film recording needs to be good quality as well as clean for the illusion of video to really work. A Vidfired Quatermass Experiment wouldn't look like a live broadcast because there are some film-characteristics on the early recordings that would be impossible to remove or hide. Even some of the more recent Dr Who releases (Reign of Terror and The Faceless Ones part 3) have come in for some criticism from people who otherwise love Vidfire, because the best source material was poor (there's an article on the RT site).

Vidfire itself won't work on US kinescopes because they're recorded differently (60 fields captured onto 24 frames), but someone in the US created a similar process to attempt to restore the video/live look. I think it's called Luster, and was used on some kinescopes of an old comedian's show (Milton Berle?). The results won't be as close to video as a Vidfired 25fps telerecording though.

There wasn't that much interest in Vidfire from video companies and broadcasters - it cost a lot to have material processed (£30 per min IIRC, plus any additional clean-up work), and wasn't likely to gain significantly more sales/viewers etc. Some companies like Network were prepared to put up the money though, so when their Sykes DVD comes out it'll have a Vidfired b/w episode. But it's only ever likely to be a 'special treat' rather than the norm.

Vidfired movie film won't look like video, for the same reasons as a poor film-recording, and because of the differences in focus and lighting and so on. If you want to have a rough idea of what it might look like, try watching a movie on a 100Hz TV set. When there's little movement it still looks like film, and when there's faster movement it looks like slow-motion film on fast-forward but with normal sound (it seems very odd in other words!)

A very short time after the criminal charges, Vidfire was sold to someone else (it was discussed on several forums at the time as well as this one, so you might be able to still find out details if you search around). Vidfire uses off-the-shelf software packages, and really anybody can use it with time and effort. Other people have tinkered with similar 'videoizing' processes, they're just not allowed to call it Vidfire, which is trademarked. With a few thousand pounds (multiplied by 2.5 for AU$ ) and a long time learning you could even have a go yourself. So fortunately the process won't be going away.

[Peter F]

>There wasn't that much interest in Vidfire from video companies and broadcasters - it cost a lot to have material processed (£30 per min IIRC, plus any additional clean-up work), and wasn't likely to gain significantly more sales/viewers etc. <

If you think £30 per minute of footage is expensive, you clearly have no idea whatsoever of the cost of broadcast facilities Are you really saying that, for example, it would be too expensive for "Top of the Pops 2" to pay £100 to have an old b/w TOTP performance VidFIREd? I can assure you that if the BBC were to do the processing in-house, it would be costed at several hundred piounds per minute of footage. Also, there was a significant discount for "bulk" work, so the cost came tumbling down for whole programmes. A base price has to be set to cover basic costs - as it is, a company could have asked for 10 seconds to be processed and it would have cost them a fiver - hardly worth getting out of the chair for.

>Some companies like Network were prepared to put up the money though, so when their Sykes DVD comes out it'll have a Vidfired b/w episode. But it's only ever likely to be a 'special treat' rather than the norm.<

How do you know this? Oh, that's right, you don't. You're putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.

And thanks so much for mentioning the other matter. Most kind of you.

Peter

[Insomniac]

Guest-Peter said:

>If you think £30 per minute of footage is expensive, you clearly have no idea whatsoever of the cost of broadcast facilities Are you really saying that, for example, it would be too expensive for "Top of the Pops 2" to pay £100 to have an old b/w TOTP performance VidFIREd?

Not at all - I was mainly thinking of Canal+/Contender and their Honor Blackman Avengers box set, and things of that ilk. A "take the money and run" company isn't going to care that they can make something better if what they've got will do. Look at the Cinema Club television releases from Granada - they use the old VHS masters when newer/better masters have been prepared for foreign sales. I'd also love to see restored and Vidfired Army Game and Dustbinmen on G+, but their attitude isn't like that up to now.

>Some companies like Network were prepared to put up the money though, so when their Sykes DVD comes out it'll have a Vidfired b/w episode. But it's only ever likely to be a 'special treat' rather than the norm.<

How do you know this? Oh, that's right, you don't. You're putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.

Sorry if that offended in any way, but as I said before I didn't see companies like Granada and Canal bothering to go to that kind of effort. If they would then of course that would be great news, but - perhaps wrongly - I assumed that it was only smaller companies who want to build up customer support and loyalty, like Network, who would even think of using Vidfire. Even the BBC didn't bother to make a new transfer of Steptoe's "The Bath" for the DVD release, never mind Vidfire it, because they thought that it would do - unlike with the Doctor Who releases, which sell to a more discerning crowd. If Vidfire is going to be more than just an occasional treat, then it's one occasion I'm very happy to be wrong (especially if it's going to be used on sitcoms!). ;D

[Laurence Piper]

It's a real shame that VidFire hasn't been taken up more by companies with archive material to restore. I am really disappointed. Let's hope this changes in future. VidFire is a great innovation. We've had to put up with ropey old telerecordings for so long now (and which do not have the look of the original broadcasts anyway). There is so much difference between the unrestored / un-VidFired Dad's Army recoveries and the improvements shown on TV a year or so ago, for example. The best showreel for VidFire so far though has been Doctor Who: The Seeds Of Death. It's fantastic and is very near to what it looked like originally. The TV companies reluctance to use VidFire is OUR loss, sadly.

[Peter F]

Well, to be honest, there was a great indifference to the process from most of the industry. Even when the BFI was offered the process for free on "Year of the Sex Olympics" they declined using the flimsy excuse that it was originally in colour and as it couldn't be restored back to colour there was no point cleaning it up or VidFIREing it (despite the fact that probably less than 5% of viewers would have seen it in colour originally). That's also the same BFI which boasts of the "restored" episode of "At Last the 1948 Show" which was a disgrace to the word. Reconstructed from disparate sources of varying quality, certainly. But if they think that's restoration, there's little wonder they're not interested in VidFIRE. The words "arse" and "elbow" spring to mind. And why "The Complete and Utter History of Britain" should be transferred optically is beyond me.... do these people have ears?

Companies like Granada and Canal Plus were sent a sample video and literature about the process over 2 years ago, and it was made explicit that complete shows could be processed at a much lower negotiated rate than the "per minute" price was was set to prevent people taking the mickey by ordering 10 second clips. There was not one single expression of interest from any of the companies. My theory is that they think it's unlikely to generate them any more sales, so even sixpence spent is sixpence less profit for them.

As before, the only way companies (TV broadcast or DVD) are going to consider using the process at all is if they're asked to, repeatedly, by the potential purchasers. One of the main reasons I passed on the rights to the process is that it was clear there was no income to be generated from it.

Peter

[Troy Walters]

Hi Peter F. Are you Peter Finklestone by any chance?? If you are I'm so sorry for that post I made, I was simply shocked and upset when I found that incident out from a friend who gave me that link. Despite that (I won't mention it again) I respect you and I think your VidFIRE program is the best thing that's ever happened to the restoration work of old kinescope recordings.

Honestly I feel really bad .

[Laurence Piper]

A sad story, Peter.

I bought the Sex Olympics DVD myself in order to support the idea of further such releases. However, I was less than happy with the overall quality of the print. It was OK, sure, but the restorations / enhancements were not a patch on what was done to The Seeds Of Death (which was also from 16mm prints of 625 line tape).

The arguments for not Vidfiring are really a case of the BFI cutting off it's nose to spite it's face; like saying "because we can't bring the colour back, we don't want to bring the video look back either". These old recordings need all the help they can get and whatever can be done tp improve the overall look is worth the effort. It's worrying that the BFI seem so in the dark when it comes to caring for our heritage. If THEY aren't responsive to new ideas then what hope is there for anyone else?

[Andy Henderson]

"If THEY aren't responsive to new ideas then what hope is there for anyone else? "

Indeed. So time to go out and buy the jumbo new year sale pack of Paracetamol...... ;-)

Seems to have taken ages for many of the people posting on this site to realise that in the general run of things, the tv companies couldn't give a damn. Especially about a minority of cult tv fans. Formalities aside, they often see them as barely tolerable. Many letters from fans just get thrown in the bin. They refuse help, recordings and information from amateurs because most of us are amateurs. Even professional people often get nowhere. For example, cleaning up old Doctor Who and then watching tv documentaries which use mostly battered clips. The message isn't getting through.

We all know about the archive tv DVDs which are out, but there is also an equally depressing list of 'could have beens'. Often vetoed for the most surprising reasons.

Why bother? I often ask that question myself!!!!

[Laurence Piper]

Indeed. Well, for what it's worth, i'll try registering my complaint in future if other such releases tread the same path. If more people did this then just maybe it would make a difference. No one can say we didn't try.

[Robert Pedley]

Hello,
I've just watched the video of the 'Gunfighters' and was simply amazed by the quality- the video like impression makes it so much more watchable.

The ABC are showing all their Dr Who's at 6.00pm at the moment [we are up to the Time Meddler] so the the comparisons between the untreated 16mm and the vidfired 'Gunfighters' [even though the lateer was not a very entertaining story] is stark.

is the 'Seeds of Death' even more like video?

It beggars belief that this option wouldn't be considered. I'm a fan of old sporting events and would love to see 16mm transfers thus treated

Robert

[bruiser]

I think the impasse with vidfire as relates to broadcasters using it is the general feeling in the industry that video is inferior to film.

The trend now is towards the exact *opposite* and the "filmizing" of videotape is gathering momentum. To these misinformed and misguided people, restoring the video look is a backward step.

[Insomniac]

I bought the Sex Olympics DVD myself in order to support the idea of further such releases. However, I was less than happy with the overall quality of the print. It was OK, sure, but the restorations / enhancements were not a patch on what was done to The Seeds Of Death (which was also from 16mm prints of 625 line tape).

Seeds was from the original negatives (to answer the other guy's question, the DVD of that does look absolutely fantastic and far, far better than The Gunfighters), YOTSO was from a print - so aside from Vidfire it would probably have been of a similar quality whatever happened (IIRC the same people at BBC Resources handled the transfer of both).

The arguments for not Vidfiring are really a case of the BFI cutting off it's nose to spite it's face;

Originally I don't think they even wanted a new transfer of the print...

Reading between the lines, am I right in thinking that most film-recorded Network releases will be Vidfired in future then? They seem to have licensed a fair bit of 16mm material for their planned releases. Or is this a genuine case of me making two and two into five?