Zen BBC1 and BBC1HD last night.

Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it?
Picture and colour quality was horrible.
Regards
David

"David" wrote:

Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it? Picture and colour
quality was horrible. Regards David

There was something "upside down" yesterday evening. Casualty in SD viewed
on BBC1 HD looked like it really was in HD. That was followed by Zen,
allegedly in HD, but actually looking like poor SD, with the exception of a
few wideshot panoramas.


--
David Pitt

In article , David wrote:
Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it?
Picture and colour quality was horrible.

I think the procedure nowadays is to justify technical incompetence
after the fact and call it "style" (or something like that), in an
attempt to fool us into believing that the excessive contrast and green
shadows (not to mention some mumbled dialogue) are what they meant to
give us all along. Sadly, the industry is probably full of people who
are genuinely unable to perceive what is wrong.

However, despite the dreadful picture quality, a few gratuitous jump
cuts and some odd framing, it was an enjoyable drama. It deserves
better photographic treament than it's getting, but since leaving the
industry a few years ago I'm gradually developing the ability to ignore
technical deficiencies (since I'm no longer paid to worry about them),
in the same way that the punters do, which is just as well because
there isn't much choice.

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

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , David wrote:
Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it?
Picture and colour quality was horrible.

I think the procedure nowadays is to justify technical incompetence
after the fact and call it "style" (or something like that), in an
attempt to fool us into believing that the excessive contrast and green
shadows (not to mention some mumbled dialogue) are what they meant to
give us all along. Sadly, the industry is probably full of people who
are genuinely unable to perceive what is wrong.

However, despite the dreadful picture quality, a few gratuitous jump
cuts and some odd framing, it was an enjoyable drama. It deserves
better photographic treament than it's getting, but since leaving the
industry a few years ago I'm gradually developing the ability to ignore
technical deficiencies (since I'm no longer paid to worry about them),
in the same way that the punters do, which is just as well because
there isn't much choice.

Rod.
I, on the other hand, have never been in the industry, but am irritated
by the shortcomings of modern production. I object to the attmpts at
'reality', which simply means an unacceptable dynamic range, leading me
to miss areas of dialogue which are at low volume, or covered by
uncecessary incidental music.
As for Zen, I mentally switched off after about 5 minutes, as I could
not follow the mumbled dialogue!

John

In article ,
David wrote:
Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it?
Picture and colour quality was horrible.

I'm getting used to 'HD' drama looking like soft SD. It's apparently what
the public demand.

However, the appalling and variable dialogue quality made the pictures
quite good by comparison. If it has to sound like it was recorded through
old socks could they please do the same to the background music?

But so saying, I enjoyed it. ;-)

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

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

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , David wrote:
Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it? Picture and colour
quality was horrible.

I think the procedure nowadays is to justify technical incompetence
after the fact and call it "style" (or something like that), in an
attempt to fool us into believing that the excessive contrast and green
shadows (not to mention some mumbled dialogue) are what they meant to
give us all along. Sadly, the industry is probably full of people who
are genuinely unable to perceive what is wrong.

I find the 'clever' effects like wobblecam, oversaturation, half-in-black,
weird colours, etc, simply annoying, perhaps partly because my eyesight is
poor anyway. At best the arty tricks/sloppy work are an annoying
distraction like having text with every character in a different font at a
randomly chosen size and colour. At worst too uncomfortable to watch.

I sometimes hope that some organisation concerned with sight disabilities,
etc, will formally complain and point out the problems such programs
inflict on some would-be viewers.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David wrote:
Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it?
Picture and colour quality was horrible.

I'm getting used to 'HD' drama looking like soft SD. It's
apparently what
the public demand.

However, the appalling and variable dialogue quality made the
pictures
quite good by comparison. If it has to sound like it was
recorded through
old socks could they please do the same to the background
music?

But so saying, I enjoyed it. ;-)

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

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



Seconded.

The sound levels were so bad - especially when the two were in
the restaurant that we needed to have our sound up to 55 where 40
is the most we normally use! If my wife isn't watching (she has a
hearing deficiency) I can listen at 20 more than comfortably.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
I find the 'clever' effects like wobblecam, oversaturation, half-in-black,
weird colours, etc, simply annoying, perhaps partly because my eyesight is
poor anyway. At best the arty tricks/sloppy work are an annoying
distraction like having text with every character in a different font at a
randomly chosen size and colour. At worst too uncomfortable to watch.

I sometimes hope that some organisation concerned with sight disabilities,
etc, will formally complain and point out the problems such programs
inflict on some would-be viewers.

I hope they don't. To suggest that people with impaired sight and/or hearing
are the only ones who need to be considered with regard to television
"production values" is to imply that the fault is somehow with the viewers
rather than the programme makers.

The simple truth that needs pointing out, and which a "Media" course
probably doesn't teach as effectively as a few decades of experience, is
that a drama is about the characters, not the production crew, and this is
regardless of who's viewing it. The photography, sound recording and editing
should make themselves as unobtrusive as possible, because the camera is not
one of the characters.

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

"David" wrote in message
...
Were they using cheap equipment to film/record it?
Picture and colour quality was horrible.
Regards
David

The sound was dreadful as well. It felt as if it was dubbed , but as Rufus
Sewell is English I assume it was made in the UK in English.

In article ,
Dave Wade wrote:
The sound was dreadful as well. It felt as if it was dubbed , but as
Rufus Sewell is English I assume it was made in the UK in English.

If it had been dubbed into English at least the vocal quality would have
been better.

--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?

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