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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.