|
Post by George D on Jul 8, 2014 22:17:35 GMT
If it was web ep 3, id be a lot more nervous, but since this is morecambe and wise, and its going to deteriorate if nothing is done anyway, i think this is one of the cases where getting the best out there working on it, is probably the best alternative with the second best effort being having it kept in a special humitity/temperature controlled vault where it cant decay
|
|
|
Post by Joe Haynes on Jul 9, 2014 17:19:48 GMT
It already has deteriorated so nothing can be recovered
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by RWels on Jul 9, 2014 17:48:55 GMT
Yeah thanks. If it was web ep 3, id be a lot more nervous, but since this is morecambe and wise... Suggesting that they're rubbish anyway? I agree; in fact I much prefer them this way (turned into a can of soup). Too bad there was talk of another copy somewhere. Well, we've now heard nothing about that for so long, maybe it was false alarm and nothing's come of it.
|
|
|
Post by J King on Aug 4, 2014 22:51:04 GMT
Hi Paul.
Can the "film renew" be vaporized?
Would it still retain its properties in a gaseous state?
Would subjecting the emulsion to the "film renew" in a non-liquid form prevent the separation problems?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Vanderlinde-Abernathy on Dec 29, 2017 13:34:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Dec 29, 2017 16:28:59 GMT
Thanks,Mark.
I thought this was a bit disingenuous: "most UK television networks gave little thought to permanent archiving in the 1960s. At a time before the advent of video exploitation (DVDs, iPlayer etc.), bodies like the BBC saw little purpose in maintaining a large and expensive collection of programming, merely for the sake of posterity."
How many of Britain's TV companies were like the BBC? Forget "permanent archiving", what was the position of the other companies with regard to destroying their output, rather than exploiting it financially in the short/medium/long term, to satisfy Equity? (If that was the reason).What impact did such exploitation have in regard to the costs of retaining the material in leasable condition?
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Dec 29, 2017 18:09:36 GMT
Thanks,Mark. I thought this was a bit disingenuous: "most UK television networks gave little thought to permanent archiving in the 1960s. At a time before the advent of video exploitation (DVDs, iPlayer etc.), bodies like the BBC saw little purpose in maintaining a large and expensive collection of programming, merely for the sake of posterity." How many of Britain's TV companies were like the BBC? Forget "permanent archiving", what was the position of the other companies with regard to destroying their output, rather than exploiting it financially in the short/medium/long term, to satisfy Equity? (If that was the reason).What impact did such exploitation have in regard to the costs of retaining the material in leasable condition? There’s a hell of a lot of missing stuff from ITV stations.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Dec 29, 2017 19:46:24 GMT
I know it varies,John, and I've no idea how their finances compared to the BBC, but I do get fed up with claims-which we don't get with this article at least, that shows were 'lost' when they were actively destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Dec 29, 2017 20:02:10 GMT
I know it varies,John, and I've no idea how their finances compared to the BBC, but I do get fed up with claims-which we don't get with this article at least, that shows were 'lost' when they were actively destroyed. Yep, i reckon some were destroyed. However, things like the ITC film series which, afaik, paid a one-off fee and so no repeat rights had to be negotiated survive intact.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by RWels on Dec 29, 2017 20:41:26 GMT
I know it varies,John, and I've no idea how their finances compared to the BBC, but I do get fed up with claims-which we don't get with this article at least, that shows were 'lost' when they were actively destroyed. Isn't that a semantical question? Eventually there was someone who physically destroyed the films or tossed them out. But I don't disagree with this description. The result is that they were lost and it was for lack of archive policy. It was a quick summary and there is more to it than that, such as Equity, but that would've been too long, and as generalisations go it wasn't too bad? And just look how often all other articles insist on speaking of "wiping of tapes" when it was junking films that was usually the final nail in the coffin.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Dec 29, 2017 20:58:11 GMT
The main impression I got from the article was that it was phenomenally detailed,to me at least, so a round of applause for that.
I haven't watched TV since July, but I must see if I can catch up with the M&W programme.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Vanderlinde-Abernathy on Dec 30, 2017 6:52:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jaspal Cheema on Dec 30, 2017 9:26:23 GMT
Absolutely incredible.Almost brings a tear to my eye as to the level of love and dedication certain individuals and organisations expend in bringing our cultural heritage back from the (seemingly) dead...
|
|
|
Post by martinjwills on Dec 30, 2017 17:36:26 GMT
I put a link in the other thread too
it seems that nothing will be too far gone in the future, lets hope nothing else in that state is destroyed, even if only short clips, this is all good work in the field of restoration.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Dec 30, 2017 18:36:08 GMT
I put a link in the other thread too it seems that nothing will be too far gone in the future, lets hope nothing else in that state is destroyed, even if only short clips, this is all good work in the field of restoration. I'll be honest, what has been recovered does not look the best. But I was sceptical that anything could be recovered, so hats off to Charles and the team for getting it this far. I did store it in my fridge for quite some time just in case, and also removed the reel from the film with my Dremel saw as it couldn't be would off. Paul
|
|