Coronation St Live episode

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
Mortimer wrote:

True, but it probably didn't feature multiple scenes interwoven as a
modern production does, and it may have used film inserts for some of
the outdoor scenes. Come to think of it, was there any live drama in
the past that used live production (ie video cameras) for outdoor
scenes?

ATV's children's drama series Timeslip, circa 1970, used video cameras
attached to an OB truck for the location scenes, which sent the output
back to ATV's Elstree studios by microwave link for recording. At that
time 'transportable' Quadruplex VTRs (of the quality required) were not
available, so that was the only method available to record the OB's
output.

but I remember seeing a full size quad machine in a Range Rover with a
double back axle

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Mortimer wrote:

True, but it probably didn't feature multiple scenes interwoven as a
modern production does, and it may have used film inserts for some of the
outdoor scenes. Come to think of it, was there any live drama in the past
that used live production (ie video cameras) for outdoor scenes?

ATV's children's drama series Timeslip, circa 1970, used video cameras
attached to an OB truck for the location scenes, which sent the output
back to ATV's Elstree studios by microwave link for recording. At that
time 'transportable' Quadruplex VTRs (of the quality required) were not
available, so that was the only method available to record the OB's
output.

Mind you, that was recorded, not live, so there wasn't the problem of making
a seamless link where a character walked out of a door in a studio set and
was seen immediately (or an unachievably short time later) in the outside
scene somewhere several miles away. If the interiors were shot at the same
location, that would improve the logistics no end!

Even as late as the early 1980s, BBC used links back to Television Centre
for recording the Royal Institution Chrsitmas Lectures, rather than
recording locally in the OB scanner vans parked on the street outside the
RI. I was in the ausience and I remember the floor manager saying at the end
that he needed us to wait in our seats while Television Centre checked that
they had a good recording, and whether they needed any bits to be re-shot.

I presume the vision mixing was done locally in the scanner, so only one
feed (rather than the feed from each camera) was fed over the microwave or
cable link to TC.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Mortimer" wrote in message
...
: True, but it probably didn't feature multiple scenes interwoven
as a modern
: production does,

But does it need to, surely that is the real question, doing
something 'just because we can' is never a very good reason for
doing it...

No, but the ability to do so can (if it's not overused) make for a more
interesting way of storytelling and can compress time between scenes, in a
way that you can't do if everthing is live.

and it may have used film inserts for some of the outdoor
: scenes. Come to think of it, was there any live drama in the
past that used
: live production (ie video cameras) for outdoor scenes?

That wasn't be because they didn't want to, it was because
technically it was difficult, has the TV companies had the camera
of today then yes they no doubt would have!

True, but by the same token, would they have done everything live if they
had had VTRs (either studio-based or in each camera) as they have today?

Production styles change, but I wonder how many programmes of the 1960s and
70s with their fairly static studio shots would have used more mobile
camerawork if the technology (size, portability) had permitted.

That was where film scored over video at that time: film cameras were more
portable and could be hand-held, mounted in/on vehicles and moved around on
Steadicams (once Garrat Brown had invented the Steadicam!) or similar
shoulder braces.

By the late 80s you were getting made-on-video programmes (eg the Nottingham
episodes of Central TV's Boon) which used portable cameras that allowed more
creative, mobile shots - and more natural lighting than the top-down "loads
of light" lighting of a studio, as you'd had for made-on-film programmes for
some time previously.

That wasn't be because they didn't want to, it was because
technically it was difficult, has the TV companies had the camera
of today then yes they no doubt would have!

True, but by the same token, would they have done everything live if they had had VTRs (either studio-based or in each camera) as
they have today?

Production styles change, but I wonder how many programmes of the 1960s and 70s with their fairly static studio shots would have
used more mobile camerawork if the technology (size, portability) had permitted.

That was where film scored over video at that time: film cameras were more portable and could be hand-held, mounted in/on vehicles
and moved around on Steadicams (once Garrat Brown had invented the Steadicam!) or similar shoulder braces.

By the late 80s you were getting made-on-video programmes (eg the Nottingham episodes of Central TV's Boon) which used portable
cameras that allowed more creative, mobile shots - and more natural lighting than the top-down "loads of light" lighting of a
studio, as you'd had for made-on-film programmes for some time previously.

I think the luddite attitude of certain trade unions protected 16mm film long after
its sell-by date for news and external shots in VTR drama.

I am by no means decrying its use in high quality film TV drama.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:24:47 -0000, "Graham." wrote:

By the late 80s you were getting made-on-video programmes (eg the Nottingham episodes of Central TV's Boon) which used portable
cameras that allowed more creative, mobile shots - and more natural lighting than the top-down "loads of light" lighting of a
studio, as you'd had for made-on-film programmes for some time previously.

I think the luddite attitude of certain trade unions protected 16mm film long after
its sell-by date for news and external shots in VTR drama.

The use of film in news and current affairs had stopped quite early in
the 80s in the BBC - the advent of portable cameras and portable
u-matic recorders caused that, and I can't rememeber any Luddite
action at the time - certainly not from staff. I do remember senior
TV Ops management not wanting Film Units to get anywhere near
electronic cameras. :-)

In the BBC, 16mm film carried on being used in documentaries in the
80s/90s for variuos reasons - none of them luddite. The gear was
more portable and reliable, cheaper to hire, you could get instant
start on a film camera, battery usage was minimal compared with
electronic, etc., etc. Also, there was little real difference in
costs since the costs of film processing on the film side could be
balanced against increased costs elsewhere on the electronic side. It
was only with the advent of better, more user friendly electronic
cameras and recorders in the 90s that film documentary work
significantly decreased.

On the drama front, film was used because it gave much better quality
and that held until quite recently when the standard of electronic
cameras improved. Again, costs were comparabvle between both
mediums.

Another factor in favour of film was that it was an international
standard and you could export 16mm (and 35mm) print or neg to anywhere
in the world and it could be replayed at high quality. This was not
the case with electronically sourced productions where they would have
to go through a conversion process when exported to non-PAL countries,
and the quality of these conversions could be questionable.

Modern day film stocks also provide an ideal medium for archival
storage.

Jim.

Jim Guthrie wrote:

The use of film in news and current affairs had stopped quite early in
the 80s in the BBC - the advent of portable cameras and portable
u-matic recorders caused that, and I can't rememeber any Luddite
action at the time - certainly not from staff.

ENG was being used elsewhere in the the world several years before the UK,
notably the US, why should that have been the case ? The UK has normally been
at the forefront of technological advances in broadcasting.

In fact, the first UK broadcaster to adopt ENG was Channel TV.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:41:07 -0000, "Mortimer" wrote:


Even as late as the early 1980s, BBC used links back to Television Centre
for recording the Royal Institution Chrsitmas Lectures, rather than
recording locally in the OB scanner vans parked on the street outside the
RI. I was in the ausience and I remember the floor manager saying at the end
that he needed us to wait in our seats while Television Centre checked that
they had a good recording, and whether they needed any bits to be re-shot.

What flexibility!

I attended the RI Christmas Lectures before they were televised. The
protocol for all one-hour lectures was that the lecturer walked into the
room at the appointed time as indicated by the clock on the wall
chiming. When the clock chimed again an hour later the lecturer stopped
speaking. This rule applied to all lectures including the children's
Christmas Lectures.

The clock was on the wall behind the lecturer. I don't know whether it
is still there. Even when I attended the lectures it tended to be
obscured by a screen for projecting stills and films on.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
Jim Guthrie wrote:

The use of film in news and current affairs had stopped quite early in
the 80s in the BBC - the advent of portable cameras and portable
u-matic recorders caused that, and I can't rememeber any Luddite
action at the time - certainly not from staff.

ENG was being used elsewhere in the the world several years before the
UK, notably the US, why should that have been the case ? The UK has
normally been at the forefront of technological advances in broadcasting.

I suspect picture quality had something to do with it.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

charles wrote:
In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
Jim Guthrie wrote:
The use of film in news and current affairs had stopped quite early in
the 80s in the BBC - the advent of portable cameras and portable
u-matic recorders caused that, and I can't rememeber any Luddite
action at the time - certainly not from staff.

ENG was being used elsewhere in the the world several years before the
UK, notably the US, why should that have been the case ? The UK has
normally been at the forefront of technological advances in broadcasting.

I suspect picture quality had something to do with it.

ISTR news footage was largely exempt from picture and sound quality concerns.
Yes, early ENG pictures were lousy, but so was much of the rapidly processed
film footage.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:41:07 -0000, "Mortimer" wrote:


Even as late as the early 1980s, BBC used links back to Television Centre
for recording the Royal Institution Chrsitmas Lectures, rather than
recording locally in the OB scanner vans parked on the street outside the
RI. I was in the ausience and I remember the floor manager saying at the
end
that he needed us to wait in our seats while Television Centre checked
that
they had a good recording, and whether they needed any bits to be re-shot.

What flexibility!

I attended the RI Christmas Lectures before they were televised. The
protocol for all one-hour lectures was that the lecturer walked into the
room at the appointed time as indicated by the clock on the wall
chiming. When the clock chimed again an hour later the lecturer stopped
speaking. This rule applied to all lectures including the children's
Christmas Lectures.

The clock was on the wall behind the lecturer. I don't know whether it
is still there. Even when I attended the lectures it tended to be
obscured by a screen for projecting stills and films on.

When I was there in the late 70s and early 80s, it was recorded as-live.
There was then a delay of about 15 mins while the tape was reviewed:
probably someone logged any dubious bits as the lecture was taking place and
those parts of the tape were checked again. Then the floor manager got the
verdict - OK to let the audience go or else reshoot specific bits such as
where a camera had missed a close-up of a large ball-bearing falling onto a
rubber skin on a "drum" and bouncing off again.

There was only one time the filming was stopped mid-lecture and that is when
the lecturer was doing the classic bromine-diffusion-in-a-glass-tube
demonstration and managed to leak bromine everywhere - most notably onto the
hands of long-suffering assistant (Eric Coates, IIRC) who muttered a few
choice words about the lecturer's parentage which were picked up perfectly
by his personal mike! With a resigned look (because this was not the first
mishap with this lecturer) the stage manager stood up waving his hands and
stopped things. There was a pause while the bromine was cleared up and a new
covering was put on the famous desk with its semi-circular cutout for the
lecturer to stand in. Eric was also taken away to have his burns tended to,
and reappeared with his fingers bandaged. The experiment was re-run, with
the rest of the lecture following on from that. The final broadcast had a
very noticeable jump-cut during which the table changed colour and Eric's
hands suddenly acquired bandages :-)