The Royle Family turned into a £100,000 farce due to a mystery camera fault.

In article ,
says...

Regardless of the discussion of whether VERA was in fact that, was
some film telerecording done with line display and continuously-moving
film, like a telecine in reverse?

(If VERA was linear magnetic, that reminds me: I remember seeing - many
years ago, and it was of the "isn't this quaint/interesting" even then,
i. e. it wasn't current - some prog. about some chaps who had built a
video recording system, based more or less on a linear quarter-inch tape
system; IIRR they got about 5 minutes out of a seven inch reel of tape.
I _think_ the monitor [I think it was a domestic TV, or looked like one]
used for the demo. looked very old-fashioned even then, so could well
have been 405. The prog. I saw was IIRR some magazine-type prog., such
as Nationwide or something of that ilk - the item was something like
"the first video recorder", and quite light-hearted, though did actually
show the equipment working, which I suspect it wouldn't have these
days.)


VETA most definitely linear magnetic and you can see it (her?) he

http://www.vtoldboys.com/vera.htm#btm

which includes archive material of the first broadcast demonstration on
Panorama which, unknown to me before today, was broadcast on my 14th
birthday! (We didn't have TV in our house for another two and a half
years.)

--

Terry

In article ,
lid says...


VETA most definitely ...

Why do you always spot the bad typo at precisely the same instant that
you press the 'send' button?

VERA, of course ...

--

Terry

The message
from Terry Casey contains these words:

In article ,
lid says...


VETA most definitely ...

Why do you always spot the bad typo at precisely the same instant that
you press the 'send' button?

VERA, of course ...

Well, at least it was obviously a typo (R and T keys being adjacent)
unlike some other "typos" where the wrong key is usually several finger
widths away from the presumed target key.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:58:15 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:27:19 +0000, Zathras wrote:

That's just plain nonsense - unless using a full blown TV studio.

...er..and where else would you shoot that type of comedy?

Almost any space that can accomodate the set. Where do you think
Casualty, Shameless and probably loads of others are shot? Full blown
TV Studios they are not. Emmerdale is a sort of half studio in that
it has galleries for vision/production and sound but that's about as
far as it goes.

Yes but, *these days* I would describe a set thrown up in a hangar
with a lighting grid, comms, multiple cameras, sound (mixer), vision
(mixer) and director positions as "full blown". They are seriously
cheap compared to the old traditional, expensive, general purpose TV
studio but the most obvious thing likely to be missing is the ability
to hold an audience. Hence, I'd recon that comedies with an audience
would most likely be shot in an old fashioned, full on studio. I am
aware of exceptions to that, though.

--
Z

In article , Zathras
writes
the most obvious thing likely to be missing is

.... soundproofing, lack of pillars, lack of ceiling height, lack of
air-conditioning, and, above all else, a lack of well-trained engineers.

Did anyone else notice the two different cameras with stuck pixels on
the snooker final? I wonder if both of them developed the fault so close
to TX they couldn't be swapped out?
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

In article ,
Zathras wrote:
Yes but, *these days* I would describe a set thrown up in a hangar
with a lighting grid, comms, multiple cameras, sound (mixer), vision
(mixer) and director positions as "full blown". They are seriously
cheap compared to the old traditional, expensive, general purpose TV
studio but the most obvious thing likely to be missing is the ability
to hold an audience

The most obvious things missing from those are 'only' pertinent to sound.
Like decent acoustics and sound proofing. Even more important in these
days of the whispering actor.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

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

"Jim Guthrie" wrote in message
...
It would be interesting to know exactly what happened in the case in
question. There is mention of a problem with a ground glass and in a
film camera that could only be the screen in the viewfinder. If the
camera operator was not allowing for the large safe area in a film
camera viewfinder, then you would get a significantly smaller picture
area on neg than in the full viewfinder, giving you peculiar framing
resulting in clipped heads, etc. If the studio monitors off the film
camera video feed were also lined up to the full viewfinder area and
not the actual picture area, then the video pictures would look OK at
the time of shooting.

I'll do a bit of phoning in the morning to see if I can dig up the
actual facts.

Did you ever find out what actually happened? Was it simply that the camera
operator forgot to allow for the safe area in the viewfinder, or was there a
problem that caused both the optical and video viewfinder to see a different
image from the one that the film saw. If the latter, how could this be
guarded against, short of running a bit of film through and getting it
rush-processed to check for calibration? How frequently is viewfinder/film
correspondence checked in a film camera?

A ground-glass screen has been mentioned. Is the optical feed to the video
viewfinder taken before or after the ground-glass screen that the camera
operator would use for accurate focussing in the optical viewfinder?

It's a while since I saw a video monitor from a film camera, but I thought
that they had a couple of safe area rectangles, suggesting that it's normal
for them to see the whole area seen in optical viewfinder, not the tighter
safe area. In other words, it's odd that no-one, neither cam op nor director
nor DOP, noticed.

Presumably an error has to be in the viewfinder rather than the main taking
lens, because a slipped element in the main lens would cause the image to be
shifted both for viewfinder and for film.

In article
,

wrote:
On 12 Dec, 11:56, "Ivan" wrote:

Which begs the question are people going to turn off in droves simply
because it had been shot in HD instead of crappie 16mm film?.

It does make a difference, giving the programme a distinctive 'look'
which people will recognise, even if they aren't aware of how it's
achieved, shooting on film seems to look more realistic to me,

Can't comment on 'film' versus 'video' as such. But one effect is often
distractingly obvious to me. Most recent example was the Channel 4 "Man on
Earth" I just watched.

When the presenter was walking about it was clear at times that we were
seeing a series of 'stills' as his arms and legs jumped from frame to
frame. Quite *unrealistic* in appearance compared to old-fashioned
persistence of vision/sensor/phosphor, and/or longer exposure per frame,
and/or correct use of interlaced fields in my opinion.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Can't comment on 'film' versus 'video' as such. But one effect is
often distractingly obvious to me. Most recent example was the
Channel 4 "Man on Earth" I just watched.

When the presenter was walking about it was clear at times that we
were seeing a series of 'stills' as his arms and legs jumped from
frame to frame. Quite *unrealistic* in appearance compared to
old-fashioned persistence of vision/sensor/phosphor, and/or longer
exposure per frame, and/or correct use of interlaced fields in my
opinion.

What you are describing is mpeg compression artefacts rather than anything
to do with whether the initial recording is digital, analogue video or film.
I take it you were watching on Freeview, and would not have seen these
artefacts had you watched the same programme on analogue.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

In article , Basil Jet wrote:
When the presenter was walking about it was clear at times that we
were seeing a series of 'stills' as his arms and legs jumped from
frame to frame. Quite *unrealistic* in appearance compared to
old-fashioned persistence of vision/sensor/phosphor, and/or longer
exposure per frame, and/or correct use of interlaced fields in my
opinion.

What you are describing is mpeg compression artefacts rather than anything
to do with whether the initial recording is digital, analogue video or film.
I take it you were watching on Freeview, and would not have seen these
artefacts had you watched the same programme on analogue.

I too can see what I think Jim was really describing, having seen it since
long before mpeg was ever thought of. Film samples only half the action (every
other 1/50th second) at 25 (or 24) times per second, whereas unadulterated
television without any daft effects samples all of it 50 times per second.
This is nothing to do with mpeg, and it makes the portrayal of movement
noticeably worse on film.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/