ITV 4 sound quality
 

Watching "The Professionals" last night on ITV4,I noticed the sound
kept going quiet, during the, umm, quiet bits. Hard to explain, but
during lulls in the top quality dialogue between Bodie and Doyle,
with minimal background noise, even the distant traffic noises and
other rumblings would stop. Did anyone else notice this? I'm guessing
it's some kind of transmission artefact or bandwidth saving thing.




Tim

ITV 4 sound quality
 

"Tim Hall" wrote in message
...
Watching "The Professionals" last night on ITV4,I noticed the sound
kept going quiet, during the, umm, quiet bits. Hard to explain, but
during lulls in the top quality dialogue between Bodie and Doyle,
with minimal background noise, even the distant traffic noises and
other rumblings would stop. Did anyone else notice this? I'm guessing
it's some kind of transmission artefact or bandwidth saving thing.

Was this on Cable, Sky or Freeview?

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Tim Hall wrote:
Watching "The Professionals" last night on ITV4,I noticed the sound
kept going quiet, during the, umm, quiet bits. Hard to explain, but
during lulls in the top quality dialogue between Bodie and Doyle,
with minimal background noise, even the distant traffic noises and
other rumblings would stop. Did anyone else notice this? I'm guessing
it's some kind of transmission artefact or bandwidth saving thing.

The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs sometimes left a
fair bit to be desired - you can often hear edits go through. This ain't
a criticism of those involved - they did they best they could in the
time allotted.

One possibility is that it was transferred from Beta or 1" somewhere
down the line and the Dolbys were mistracking.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

"Tim Hall" wrote in message

Watching "The Professionals" last night on ITV4,I noticed the sound
kept going quiet, during the, umm, quiet bits. Hard to explain, but
during lulls in the top quality dialogue between Bodie and Doyle,
with minimal background noise, even the distant traffic noises and
other rumblings would stop. Did anyone else notice this? I'm guessing
it's some kind of transmission artefact or bandwidth saving thing.

I've noticed that, possibly on The Professionals. I wouldn't have thought it
would save much bandwidth. It could be some kind of "dynamic noise
reduction" where the hiss in the quiet bits is reduced to silence. Sometimes
scratchy old films have that effect in which case the scratches appear under
the dialogue.

--
Max Demian

ITV 4 sound quality
 

Yes, and it sounds dreadful, in my opinion. Lots of stuff from the 80s and
90s sounds like this. Presumably the sound track has degraded and generates
too much hiss.

As Max says, the broadcaster uses 'noise gating' to reduce the apparent
noise. The sound is simply cut off until it reaches a certain level, at
which point the gate opens and lets the sound through.

It removes the background hiss from the quiet moments, but I find the
'clipping' effect it has on speech (at the start and end of each utterance)
really objectionable.

When it's really bad you can hear distinct 'noise pumping', where the
background hiss is 'pumped' by the dialogue and is clearly audible above it.
Some of the Inspector Morse programmes are like this now.

Hideous. Thank goodness we're recording new stuff digitally. At least it
won't degrade like that.

Thack

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
Watching "The Professionals" last night on ITV4,I noticed the sound
kept going quiet, during the, umm, quiet bits. Hard to explain, but
during lulls in the top quality dialogue between Bodie and Doyle,
with minimal background noise, even the distant traffic noises and
other rumblings would stop. Did anyone else notice this? I'm guessing
it's some kind of transmission artefact or bandwidth saving thing.

I've noticed that, possibly on The Professionals. I wouldn't have
thought it would save much bandwidth. It could be some kind of "dynamic
noise reduction" where the hiss in the quiet bits is reduced to
silence. Sometimes scratchy old films have that effect in which case
the scratches appear under the dialogue.

The soundtrack on the Professionals wouldn't be optical, though, unless
all they could find was a copy made for overseas sales. But I can't
imagine LWT being so careless as to loose a master - unlike the BBC.

--
*i souport publik edekashun.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
Watching "The Professionals" last night on ITV4,I noticed the sound
kept going quiet, during the, umm, quiet bits. Hard to explain, but
during lulls in the top quality dialogue between Bodie and Doyle,
with minimal background noise, even the distant traffic noises and
other rumblings would stop. Did anyone else notice this? I'm guessing
it's some kind of transmission artefact or bandwidth saving thing.


Just like most radio stations and T.V. sound today the signal is shoved
through compressors & noise gates.
If any broadcasters are reading this - Please, Please, Please throw away
those compressors and give us back our dynamic range like we had years ago!!

Stefan

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In all fairness, though, for a lot of the TV programmes I've noticed it on -
Inspector Morse, Sherlock Holmes, etc - the noise gating is obviously there
to try to recover a badly degraded sound track. They've been doing this
technique for years, long before we were using lossy compression in
broadcast TV.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
In all fairness, though, for a lot of the TV programmes I've noticed it
on - Inspector Morse, Sherlock Holmes, etc - the noise gating is
obviously there to try to recover a badly degraded sound track.
They've been doing this technique for years, long before we were using
lossy compression in broadcast TV.

The sound tracks on these really shouldn't be badly degraded - any more
than the pictures. Morse, however, used radio mics extensively so had a
pretty appalling dialogue track to start with. And sadly Lewis has
followed this lead.

There's no doubt however that some standards have improved these days
sound wise for this sort of drama. Compare The Bill to The Sweeny - both
made by the same company - to see just how far things have moved on.

--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
In all fairness, though, for a lot of the TV programmes I've noticed it
on - Inspector Morse, Sherlock Holmes, etc - the noise gating is
obviously there to try to recover a badly degraded sound track.
They've been doing this technique for years, long before we were using
lossy compression in broadcast TV.

The sound tracks on these really shouldn't be badly degraded - any more
than the pictures. Morse, however, used radio mics extensively so had a
pretty appalling dialogue track to start with. And sadly Lewis has
followed this lead.

There's no doubt however that some standards have improved these days
sound wise for this sort of drama. Compare The Bill to The Sweeny - both
made by the same company - to see just how far things have moved on.

--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I haven't heard this particular programme, but I do remember the effect from
some Morse repeats. I wonder if it is actually not Dolby mistracking, but
Dolby in the wrong mode. Analogue Beta machines, and I think C format, use
Dolby which can be switched on or off, and when these machines first became
general there were different policies adapted as to its use. As a result
these are tapes of both types from the period both with and without Dolby
encoding - LWT at least in house always encoded, whereas some other
companies did not - leading to random replay errors on external clips. I
can't speak for other ITV companies - I'm sure others will know more.

Most film dramas of the period got transfered to tape for TX, and the effect
would be as described if the tape was not Dolby encoded, but had been
decoded on playback. I recall phoning the duty officer about an early repeat
series of Morses which I knew hadn't been as bad on first TX as I was now
hearing it, and getting an initial blank wall, with an eventual agreement on
the problem, having had to be quite persistent.

I think that the problem is now that when this error exists it can be some
time in the past, with the current tape now usually being Digibeta. To
rectify it would mean going back a step to the Beta/C format tape, which
will now probably be at outside storage and not readily available - with
extra costs and hassle for the broadcaster. Hence the initial "you are the
only one to complain" reply, in the hope that you will go away.

If its really bad, and you think this reason might be the case - keep
phoning!

Finally, having had the pleasure in the past of occasionally dubbing "The
Bill," I can confirm that the programmes original sound tracks were recorded
with a great deal of care, and were indeed to a different standard.

Charles F

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Charles Fearnley wrote:
I haven't heard this particular programme, but I do remember the effect
from some Morse repeats. I wonder if it is actually not Dolby
mistracking, but Dolby in the wrong mode. Analogue Beta machines, and I
think C format, use Dolby which can be switched on or off, and when
these machines first became general there were different policies
adapted as to its use. As a result these are tapes of both types from
the period both with and without Dolby encoding - LWT at least in house
always encoded, whereas some other companies did not - leading to random
replay errors on external clips. I can't speak for other ITV companies -
I'm sure others will know more.

Yes. With C format I think I'm correct in saying the BBC didn't use Dolby
A - their feeling being it was already better than quad, so didn't need
further improvment. Thames did standardise on Dolby A for these machines -
and the results on a good one were at least the equal of a dubbing
multi-track.

Cassette based systems like Beta and MII had very poor linear tracks
without Dolby C - and of course like any Dolby system needed careful line
up. Which could account for poor transfers these days given that proper
VTR engineers are somewhat thin on the ground.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:53:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs sometimes left a
fair bit to be desired - you can often hear edits go through. This ain't
a criticism of those involved - they did they best they could in the
time allotted.

The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on film and the
originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used film copies or
very much more likely digital copies made from the analogue copies that were
made originally from the double band masters.

This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of research indicates
that the original negatives and inter-positives have been lost.

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In message , Stuart McKears
writes
The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on film and the
originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

I thought it was 35mm film.

The BBC's Miss Marple series from the 80s and 90s looks pretty dreadful,
especially on a TV screen larger than 14". Isn't that 16mm film?
--
Martin Jay
Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs sometimes left a
fair bit to be desired - you can often hear edits go through. This ain't
a criticism of those involved - they did they best they could in the
time allotted.

The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on film and the
originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

Regardless of the format I was commenting on the sound post. FWIW they had
no option but to use film for this sort of location show anyway -
lightweight electronic cameras and VTRs simply weren't good enough if they
even existed. That had to wait for Betacam, etc.

I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used film
copies or very much more likely digital copies made from the analogue
copies that were made originally from the double band masters.

Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more than the
pictures - quite the reverse, really.

This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of research
indicates that the original negatives and inter-positives have been
lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag was
pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:09:38 +0000, Martin Jay wrote:

In message , Stuart McKears
writes
The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on film and the
originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

I thought it was 35mm film.

Yes and No :-) I would have sworn that all episodes were made on 16mm but one
fan site says the first series was in 35mm. You learn something new everyday!

The BBC's Miss Marple series from the 80s and 90s looks pretty dreadful,
especially on a TV screen larger than 14". Isn't that 16mm film?

Yes, Miss Marple was made on film and I don't quite know what you're seeing. It
is true that because film has a far higher resolution than broadcast television,
the broadcast picture will tend to look soft and, sometimes, washed out.

You can project 16mm film to far larger sizes than video.

regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:13:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs sometimes left a
fair bit to be desired - you can often hear edits go through. This ain't
a criticism of those involved - they did they best they could in the
time allotted.

The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on film and the
originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

Regardless of the format I was commenting on the sound post. FWIW they had
no option but to use film for this sort of location show anyway -
lightweight electronic cameras and VTRs simply weren't good enough if they
even existed. That had to wait for Betacam, etc.

Not really true, size and weight of video cameras are much the same as
self-blimped 16mm film cameras. Film is still used today though real HD is now
taking over.

I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used film
copies or very much more likely digital copies made from the analogue
copies that were made originally from the double band masters.

Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more than the
pictures - quite the reverse, really.

That is not my experience of multi generation loss.

This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of research
indicates that the original negatives and inter-positives have been
lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag was
pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st century
technology? And how would you have made sync films in the 1970s without using
sepmag?

regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In message , Stuart McKears
writes
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:09:38 +0000, Martin Jay wrote:
The BBC's Miss Marple series from the 80s and 90s looks pretty dreadful,
especially on a TV screen larger than 14". Isn't that 16mm film?

Yes, Miss Marple was made on film and I don't quite know what you're
seeing. It is true that because film has a far higher resolution than
broadcast television, the broadcast picture will tend to look soft and,
sometimes, washed out.

The BBC's Miss Marple series looks very grainy and lacks detail. Well,
the episodes I've seen on UKTV do, anyway. UKTV tend not to have the
best copies of the programmes they show, and digital satellite bit rates
aren't what they could be.
--
Martin Jay
Phone/SMS: +44 7740 191877

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:13:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Stuart McKears
wrote:
The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs sometimes
left a fair bit to be desired - you can often hear edits go through.
This ain't a criticism of those involved - they did they best they
could in the time allotted.

The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on film and
the originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

Regardless of the format I was commenting on the sound post. FWIW they
had no option but to use film for this sort of location show anyway -
lightweight electronic cameras and VTRs simply weren't good enough if
they even existed. That had to wait for Betacam, etc.

Not really true, size and weight of video cameras are much the same as
self-blimped 16mm film cameras. Film is still used today though real HD
is now taking over.

Err, I'm talking about the '70s when the Professionals was made.

I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used film
copies or very much more likely digital copies made from the analogue
copies that were made originally from the double band masters.

Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more than the
pictures - quite the reverse, really.

That is not my experience of multi generation loss.

It is mine if the VTRs are carefully lined up. Especially where Dolby is
involved.


This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of research
indicates that the original negatives and inter-positives have been
lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag was
pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the 1970s
without using sepmag?

It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:08:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:13:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Stuart McKears
wrote:
The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs sometimes
left a fair bit to be desired - you can often hear edits go through.
This ain't a criticism of those involved - they did they best they
could in the time allotted.

The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on film and
the originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

Regardless of the format I was commenting on the sound post. FWIW they
had no option but to use film for this sort of location show anyway -
lightweight electronic cameras and VTRs simply weren't good enough if
they even existed. That had to wait for Betacam, etc.

Not really true, size and weight of video cameras are much the same as
self-blimped 16mm film cameras. Film is still used today though real HD
is now taking over.

Err, I'm talking about the '70s when the Professionals was made.

Err, so am I.


I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used film
copies or very much more likely digital copies made from the analogue
copies that were made originally from the double band masters.

Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more than the
pictures - quite the reverse, really.

That is not my experience of multi generation loss.

It is mine if the VTRs are carefully lined up. Especially where Dolby is
involved.

That's probably true but we're not talking about VTR to VTR. We talking about
film to a tape format sometime in the past, then probably from tape to a newer
format and then compressed for broadcast.

This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of research
indicates that the original negatives and inter-positives have been
lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag was
pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the 1970s
without using sepmag?

It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

I'm sorry but I have to press you on this and ask why? If I remember correctly
16mm mag track runs at approx 7.5ips and the center track is wider than for 1/4"
tape which I believe significantly improved the S/N ratio - we used to record
on the Nagra at 15ips so that there was no loss on the transfer (caveat: I've
never been a soundie, just used to listen to them as they mumbled on about Dbs,
levels and most especially backgrounds noises that none us could ever hear!!)



regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:42:29 +0000, Stuart McKears
wrote:

Yes, Miss Marple was made on film and I don't quite know what you're seeing. It
is true that because film has a far higher resolution than broadcast television,
the broadcast picture will tend to look soft and, sometimes, washed out.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If film really has a higher
resolution, then shouldn't broadcast pictures derived from it look
sharper?

Rod.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

Stuart McKears wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:08:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:13:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Stuart
McKears wrote:
The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs
sometimes left a fair bit to be desired - you can often hear
edits go through. This ain't a criticism of those involved -
they did they best they could in the time allotted.

The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on
film and the originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

Regardless of the format I was commenting on the sound post. FWIW
they had no option but to use film for this sort of location show
anyway - lightweight electronic cameras and VTRs simply weren't
good enough if they even existed. That had to wait for Betacam,
etc.

Not really true, size and weight of video cameras are much the
same as self-blimped 16mm film cameras. Film is still used today
though real HD is now taking over.

Err, I'm talking about the '70s when the Professionals was made.

Err, so am I.


I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used
film copies or very much more likely digital copies made from
the analogue copies that were made originally from the double
band masters.
Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more
than the pictures - quite the reverse, really.

That is not my experience of multi generation loss.

It is mine if the VTRs are carefully lined up. Especially where
Dolby is involved.

That's probably true but we're not talking about VTR to VTR. We
talking about film to a tape format sometime in the past, then
probably from tape to a newer format and then compressed for
broadcast.

This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of
research indicates that the original negatives and
inter-positives have been lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm
sepmag was pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the
1970s without using sepmag?

It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

I'm sorry but I have to press you on this and ask why? If I remember
correctly 16mm mag track runs at approx 7.5ips and the center track
is wider than for 1/4" tape which I believe significantly improved
the S/N ratio - we used to record on the Nagra at 15ips so that
there was no loss on the transfer (caveat: I've never been a
soundie, just used to listen to them as they mumbled on about Dbs,
levels and most especially backgrounds noises that none us could ever
hear!!)



regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

The sound quality seemed good on the sep mag machines I worked on.
(Sondor)

--
Ashley
For Windsor Weather see www.snglinks.com/wx

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
Not really true, size and weight of video cameras are much the same
as self-blimped 16mm film cameras. Film is still used today though
real HD is now taking over.

Err, I'm talking about the '70s when the Professionals was made.

Err, so am I.

Then perhaps you'll tell me what broadcast quality electronic
camera/recorder combination was the same size as a 16mm camera?


I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used
film copies or very much more likely digital copies made from the
analogue copies that were made originally from the double band
masters.

Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more than
the pictures - quite the reverse, really.

That is not my experience of multi generation loss.

It is mine if the VTRs are carefully lined up. Especially where Dolby
is involved.

That's probably true but we're not talking about VTR to VTR. We talking
about film to a tape format sometime in the past, then probably from
tape to a newer format and then compressed for broadcast.

You've lost me here. If they still have the film it's one trasfer. If not
it's VTR to VTR.

This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of
research indicates that the original negatives and inter-positives
have been lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag
was pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the
1970s without using sepmag?

It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

I'm sorry but I have to press you on this and ask why? If I remember
correctly 16mm mag track runs at approx 7.5ips and the center track is
wider than for 1/4" tape which I believe significantly improved the S/N
ratio - we used to record on the Nagra at 15ips so that there was no
loss on the transfer (caveat: I've never been a soundie, just used to
listen to them as they mumbled on about Dbs, levels and most especially
backgrounds noises that none us could ever hear!!)

In a word, head contact. Or even two words.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Ashley Booth wrote:
The sound quality seemed good on the sep mag machines I worked on.
(Sondor)

About the same as a reasonable cassette machine.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:08:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:13:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
[snip]
As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag was
pretty poor quality to start with anyway.
Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the 1970s
without using sepmag?
It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

I'm sorry but I have to press you on this and ask why?

16mm sepmag came on a very stiff base, which made for poor head contact.
It ran at 7.2 ips, and was very dropouty.


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5096714C
Fingerprint: F838 740C 76B4 6EC6 9ECC 1C4D A4DE 3322 5096 714C

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:22:00 -0000, Jim Mason
wrote:

Yes, Miss Marple was made on film and I don't quite know what you're seeing. It
is true that because film has a far higher resolution than broadcast television,
the broadcast picture will tend to look soft and, sometimes, washed out.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If film really has a higher
resolution, then shouldn't broadcast pictures derived from it look
sharper?

Surely that would depend at what bit rate they were sampled/broadcast at?

Yes, it will depend on that too, but primarily it will depend on the
quality of the original material. I don't understand how original
material with higher resolution will look softer. It may not look much
sharper of course, given the sampling limitation you've mentioned, but
why would it look softer?

Also, if "washed out" is a reference to contrast, then that should
have nothing to do with sampling rate at all.

Rod.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Ashley Booth wrote:
The sound quality seemed good on the sep mag machines I worked on.
(Sondor)

About the same as a reasonable cassette machine.

Not as good as a Nagra I agree. (Having worked as a service manager for
the uk agents of both products)

--
Ashley

"C'est un Nagra. C'est Suisse, et tres, tres precis."
For Windsor Weather see www.snglinks.com/wx

ITV 4 sound quality
 

In article ,
Ashley Booth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Ashley Booth wrote:
The sound quality seemed good on the sep mag machines I worked on.
(Sondor)

About the same as a reasonable cassette machine.

Not as good as a Nagra I agree. (Having worked as a service manager for
the uk agents of both products)

The thing with these pro systems is not what they sound like on one
generation, but how they stand up to multiple generations as was needed
for dubbing, etc. And the 'burble' background noise caused by the
indifferent oxide/head contact of magnetic film multiplied badly requiring
filtering out at the final result. Which also removed the extreme HF.

--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ITV 4 sound quality
 

Sondor... that takes me back to World Wide's transfer bay....

Guy

Ashley Booth wrote:
Stuart McKears wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:08:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:13:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Stuart
McKears wrote:
The original dubbing on these cheap and cheerful progs
sometimes left a fair bit to be desired - you can often hear
edits go through. This ain't a criticism of those involved -
they did they best they could in the time allotted.

The Professionals and other shows from that era were made on
film and the originals were pretty high quality 16mm film..

Regardless of the format I was commenting on the sound post. FWIW
they had no option but to use film for this sort of location show
anyway - lightweight electronic cameras and VTRs simply weren't
good enough if they even existed. That had to wait for Betacam,
etc.

Not really true, size and weight of video cameras are much the
same as self-blimped 16mm film cameras. Film is still used today
though real HD is now taking over.

Err, I'm talking about the '70s when the Professionals was made.

Err, so am I.


I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used
film copies or very much more likely digital copies made from
the analogue copies that were made originally from the double
band masters.
Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more
than the pictures - quite the reverse, really.

That is not my experience of multi generation loss.

It is mine if the VTRs are carefully lined up. Especially where
Dolby is involved.

That's probably true but we're not talking about VTR to VTR. We
talking about film to a tape format sometime in the past, then
probably from tape to a newer format and then compressed for
broadcast.

This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of
research indicates that the original negatives and
inter-positives have been lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm
sepmag was pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the
1970s without using sepmag?

It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

I'm sorry but I have to press you on this and ask why? If I remember
correctly 16mm mag track runs at approx 7.5ips and the center track
is wider than for 1/4" tape which I believe significantly improved
the S/N ratio - we used to record on the Nagra at 15ips so that
there was no loss on the transfer (caveat: I've never been a
soundie, just used to listen to them as they mumbled on about Dbs,
levels and most especially backgrounds noises that none us could ever
hear!!)



regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

The sound quality seemed good on the sep mag machines I worked on.
(Sondor)

ITV 4 sound quality
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Charles Fearnley wrote:
I haven't heard this particular programme, but I do remember the effect
from some Morse repeats. I wonder if it is actually not Dolby
mistracking, but Dolby in the wrong mode. Analogue Beta machines, and I
think C format, use Dolby which can be switched on or off, and when
these machines first became general there were different policies
adapted as to its use. As a result these are tapes of both types from
the period both with and without Dolby encoding - LWT at least in house
always encoded, whereas some other companies did not - leading to random
replay errors on external clips. I can't speak for other ITV companies -
I'm sure others will know more.

Yes. With C format I think I'm correct in saying the BBC didn't use Dolby
A - their feeling being it was already better than quad, so didn't need
further improvment. Thames did standardise on Dolby A for these machines -
and the results on a good one were at least the equal of a dubbing
multi-track.

Cassette based systems like Beta and MII had very poor linear tracks
without Dolby C - and of course like any Dolby system needed careful line
up. Which could account for poor transfers these days given that proper
VTR engineers are somewhat thin on the ground.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


All that being said. For many years sound on majority of television and
radio programmes are far too compressed and suffer from pumping and
breathing.
Also, perhaps with the exception of Radio 3 & 4, stations are at such a high
output they are distorted. If I was a cynic I might think that this was
intentional so we get accustomed to poor sound quality so DAB sounds more
acceptable.
Give another couple of generations and there will be no one left alive who
remebers good broadcast sound and picture.

Stefan

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:53:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
Not really true, size and weight of video cameras are much the same
as self-blimped 16mm film cameras. Film is still used today though
real HD is now taking over.

Err, I'm talking about the '70s when the Professionals was made.

Err, so am I.

Then perhaps you'll tell me what broadcast quality electronic
camera/recorder combination was the same size as a 16mm camera?

You're now talking about size as well as weight. The fact that there were no
broadcast quality camcorders available is taken as read. My comments, which were
in the present tense, were in reference to your comments about "lightweight
cameras". At the time, and still now, a lightweight camera means something very
different to me. I regret the misunderstanding.


I suspect these repeats are digital copies made from well used
film copies or very much more likely digital copies made from the
analogue copies that were made originally from the double band
masters.

Indeed. However there's no reason for the sound to suffer more than
the pictures - quite the reverse, really.

That is not my experience of multi generation loss.

It is mine if the VTRs are carefully lined up. Especially where Dolby
is involved.

That's probably true but we're not talking about VTR to VTR. We talking
about film to a tape format sometime in the past, then probably from
tape to a newer format and then compressed for broadcast.

You've lost me here. If they still have the film it's one trasfer. If not
it's VTR to VTR.

No. In this case, The Professionals, we know that the film/sound track masters
are not available so we don't know whether the source for the broadcast,
mentioned by the OP, is film and we don't know whether that film is sepmag,
striped mag or optical - all three types would almost certainly been produced
for export. If it's not film, we don't know what format the source tapes are and
we don't know what format and what generation they are. It's also true that this
is cheapo TV, the cost of transmission of an episode is probably in the 100s, so
the amount of care taken in copying and transmission is minimal.


This is especially true with The Professionals as a bit of
research indicates that the original negatives and inter-positives
have been lost.

As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag
was pretty poor quality to start with anyway.

Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the
1970s without using sepmag?

It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

I'm sorry but I have to press you on this and ask why? If I remember
correctly 16mm mag track runs at approx 7.5ips and the center track is
wider than for 1/4" tape which I believe significantly improved the S/N
ratio - we used to record on the Nagra at 15ips so that there was no
loss on the transfer (caveat: I've never been a soundie, just used to
listen to them as they mumbled on about Dbs, levels and most especially
backgrounds noises that none us could ever hear!!)

In a word, head contact. Or even two words.

I am aware of that difficulty but as I said your 're really comparing 1970s
technology with 21st century technology. At the time, sepmag was easy to use and
gave bloody good sound compared to the alternatives available.


regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:46:39 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:42:29 +0000, Stuart McKears
wrote:

Yes, Miss Marple was made on film and I don't quite know what you're seeing. It
is true that because film has a far higher resolution than broadcast television,
the broadcast picture will tend to look soft and, sometimes, washed out.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If film really has a higher
resolution, then shouldn't broadcast pictures derived from it look
sharper?

Rod.

Sharpness is a perception of contrast.

The contrast ratio of TV is under 25% that of film so straight copies film to TV
will often look soft - lighting, film stock will make a difference.

To overcome this, film for TV was printed on low contrast stock or gray base
stock.
regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:56:00 +0000, Richard Lamont wrote:

Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:08:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stuart McKears wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:13:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
[snip]
As long as the TX master still exists they should be ok. 16mm sepmag was
pretty poor quality to start with anyway.
Really. What are you comparing it with? 1970s technology with 21st
century technology? And how would you have made sync films in the 1970s
without using sepmag?
It was poor compared to 1/4" tape.

I'm sorry but I have to press you on this and ask why?

16mm sepmag came on a very stiff base, which made for poor head contact.
It ran at 7.2 ips, and was very dropouty.

Just to be pedantic, I'm sure that 16mm sepmag ran at 7.5 ips for TV.
regards

Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.cyclewriter.org - Charity Premiere in May

ITV 4 sound quality
 

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:25:18 +0100, Stuart McKears
wrote:

Yes, Miss Marple was made on film and I don't quite know what you're seeing. It
is true that because film has a far higher resolution than broadcast television,
the broadcast picture will tend to look soft and, sometimes, washed out.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If film really has a higher
resolution, then shouldn't broadcast pictures derived from it look
sharper?

Rod.

Sharpness is a perception of contrast.

The contrast ratio of TV is under 25% that of film so straight copies film to TV
will often look soft - lighting, film stock will make a difference.

To overcome this, film for TV was printed on low contrast stock or gray base
stock.

I seem to have been labouring under a misapprehension all these years
that "contrast" was to do with the ratio between light and dark parts
of a picture, and that whether it was "sharp" or "soft" was to do with
the representation of fine detail. I don't understand why greater
resolution in the original material should make the end result
inferior in either contrast or fine detail. Photographing real life
directly with a television camera desn't generally look less detailed
or less contrasty than televising a film of it, and the real life
scene must have more of both in it than the film.

Rod.