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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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)

"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

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