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

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

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.