I recently came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5K5bugDPk
(OK, I'm an NM fan; so shoot me.) I found it fascinating: not just how
NM featured (just part of a team for a lot of the time, not in
full-length, even "ohne Brillen" at one point), but also the production: obviously extravagant (though by today's standards flawed in places),
but also somehow rather innocent and old-fashioned - I think more so
than would have been the case in Britain even then.
But what I thought interesting to us here was the technical quality. I couldn't see any film artefacts (scratches, dirt etc.) (except on some obviously back-projected travel material), but if the date mentioned is correct, it must have been from the _very_ early days of videotape: what
do others think? It was a bit high-contrast, and difficult tIo tell altogether because of the preservation stages it has gone through, but
still.
(Also at one point - 8:51-9:44 there was facial lighting that looked as
if it might have been from a camera-mounted light. [Actually a lot of
that seemed one very long take without a cut, of Fred-and-Ginger length, though no dancing was involved during it.])
That lush orchestration ... (-:
On 25/05/2022 00:01, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I recently came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5K5bugDPk
(OK, I'm an NM fan; so shoot me.) I found it fascinating: not just how
NM featured (just part of a team for a lot of the time, not in
full-length, even "ohne Brillen" at one point), but also the production:
obviously extravagant (though by today's standards flawed in places),
but also somehow rather innocent and old-fashioned - I think more so
than would have been the case in Britain even then.
But what I thought interesting to us here was the technical quality. I
couldn't see any film artefacts (scratches, dirt etc.) (except on some
obviously back-projected travel material), but if the date mentioned is
correct, it must have been from the _very_ early days of videotape: what
do others think? It was a bit high-contrast, and difficult tIo tell
altogether because of the preservation stages it has gone through, but
still.
(Also at one point - 8:51-9:44 there was facial lighting that looked as
if it might have been from a camera-mounted light. [Actually a lot of
that seemed one very long take without a cut, of Fred-and-Ginger length,
though no dancing was involved during it.])
That lush orchestration ... (-:
I'm inclined to agree with you - the contrast is vibrant (ie not the >muddiness of film recording) and there's no film dirt that I could see,
so it looks as if it's videotape. Probably dubbed from one tape/format
to another several times over the years, because I doubt whether VT from
1964 would still look that good. Looks as if there has been a dub to VHS
at some point, judging by the occasional noise-bar dropouts.
What is interesting is that there are none of the image orthicon
black-haloed highlights (eg of the on-camera light reflected in NM's >trademark specs). Would Plumbicons or other similar camera tubes be used
that long ago?
Ampex developed the Quadruplex VT format in the mid-1950s, so it was
probably fairly well established by 1964. I hadn't realised that they >developed a helical format (as used in VHS and in all non-Quad formats)
as early as 1963 - if Wikipedia is to be believed.
What is interesting is that there are none of the image orthicon >>black-haloed highlights (eg of the on-camera light reflected in NM's >>trademark specs). Would Plumbicons or other similar camera tubes be used >>that long ago?
The Plumbicon tube dates from 1963, and colour cameras that used them
were probably in use by some broadcasters well before the official
start of broadcasting in colour, or even before any decisions on which
system would be used. It's possible that some programmes were recorded
in colour even if broadcast in monochrome, possibly this one. (Since
it's a German broadcast, I think we can assume that if the original
was in colour, it would be PAL).
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:unrr8hdai580qpphutmtf4d2fokp39hs12@4ax.com...
What is interesting is that there are none of the image orthicon >>black-haloed highlights (eg of the on-camera light reflected in NM's >>trademark specs). Would Plumbicons or other similar camera tubes be
used that long ago?
The Plumbicon tube dates from 1963, and colour cameras that used them
were probably in use by some broadcasters well before the official
start of broadcasting in colour, or even before any decisions on which system would be used. It's possible that some programmes were recorded
in colour even if broadcast in monochrome, possibly this one. (Since
it's a German broadcast, I think we can assume that if the original was
in colour, it would be PAL).
Ah, so it may well have been "filmed" with Plumbicon cameras rather than
IO cameras. I presume IOs only continued to be used by some studios
because they still worked (subject to the black halo around highlights
and the white halo around shadows) and there was no point replacing
working cameras. I presume there were some B&W cameras that used
Plumbicons, or was it as clear-cut as "B&W=IO, colour=Plumbicon"?
 I wonder whether it was made in PAL or NTSC - when did UK
broadcasters definitely commit to PAL?
In article <t6l4t0$d4u$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:unrr8hdai580qpphutmtf4d2fokp39hs12@4ax.com...
What is interesting is that there are none of the image orthicon
black-haloed highlights (eg of the on-camera light reflected in NM's
trademark specs). Would Plumbicons or other similar camera tubes be
used that long ago?
The Plumbicon tube dates from 1963, and colour cameras that used them
were probably in use by some broadcasters well before the official
start of broadcasting in colour, or even before any decisions on which
system would be used. It's possible that some programmes were recorded
in colour even if broadcast in monochrome, possibly this one. (Since
it's a German broadcast, I think we can assume that if the original was
in colour, it would be PAL).
Ah, so it may well have been "filmed" with Plumbicon cameras rather than
IO cameras. I presume IOs only continued to be used by some studios
because they still worked (subject to the black halo around highlights
and the white halo around shadows) and there was no point replacing
working cameras. I presume there were some B&W cameras that used
Plumbicons, or was it as clear-cut as "B&W=IO, colour=Plumbicon"?
Two tng s missing here: The "Plumbicon" was an improvement of the
"vidicon"
which had been around for about 20 years before Philips' invention.
Some color cameras used an IO for detail with vidicons for the color
content.
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:59ee20f652charles@candehope.me.uk...
In article <t6l4t0$d4u$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:unrr8hdai580qpphutmtf4d2fokp39hs12@4ax.com...
What is interesting is that there are none of the image orthicon
black-haloed highlights (eg of the on-camera light reflected in NM's
trademark specs). Would Plumbicons or other similar camera tubes be
used that long ago?
The Plumbicon tube dates from 1963, and colour cameras that used
them were probably in use by some broadcasters well before the
official start of broadcasting in colour, or even before any
decisions on which system would be used. It's possible that some
programmes were recorded in colour even if broadcast in monochrome,
possibly this one. (Since it's a German broadcast, I think we can
assume that if the original was in colour, it would be PAL).
Ah, so it may well have been "filmed" with Plumbicon cameras rather
than IO cameras. I presume IOs only continued to be used by some
studios because they still worked (subject to the black halo around
highlights and the white halo around shadows) and there was no point
replacing working cameras. I presume there were some B&W cameras that
used Plumbicons, or was it as clear-cut as "B&W=IO, colour=Plumbicon"?
Two tng s missing here: The "Plumbicon" was an improvement of the
"vidicon" which had been around for about 20 years before Philips' invention.
Was the vidicon ever used for broadcast-quality B&W cameras, or was it
only ever used for consumer and security cameras? I thought the lag and
smear was too great for B&W (or luminance of colour camera).
Some color cameras used an IO for detail with vidicons for the color content.
I never knew that. I bet the black halo around highlights created an interesting effect when coupled with the lag-ridden (but non-haloed) red, green and blue channels. I thought the tubes of colour cameras had to be carefully matched to avoid any artefacts manifesting themselves as
coloured patches which are even more noticeable than neutral luminance effects.
Mind you, earlier tube cameras when panned over a bright light
(reflection of studio light, or candle flame) tended to produce strong
green after-images, which suggests a mismatch in lag characteristics
between the luminance tube and one or more of the chroma tubes.
One other thing. How long did it take to "warm up" a TV camera? I'm
surprised that at the time of Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the early
news reports from Walter Cronkite were in sound only, until the studio cameras had warmed up. I'd have thought that mis-registered colour
images, or geometrically distorted B&W images would have been preferable
to no image at all initially.
ISTR that Pres A used vidicon camera for B&W, but I might be wrong. We certainly used vidicon tubes in the Fernseh Standards Converters.
On Wed, 25 May 2022 01:11:56 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:[]
On 25/05/2022 00:01, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I recently came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5K5bugDPk
[]But what I thought interesting to us here was the technical quality. I
couldn't see any film artefacts (scratches, dirt etc.) (except on some
obviously back-projected travel material), but if the date mentioned is
correct, it must have been from the _very_ early days of videotape: what >>> do others think? It was a bit high-contrast, and difficult tIo tell
altogether because of the preservation stages it has gone through, but
still.
I'm inclined to agree with you - the contrast is vibrant (ie not the >>muddiness of film recording) and there's no film dirt that I could see,
so it looks as if it's videotape. Probably dubbed from one tape/format
to another several times over the years, because I doubt whether VT from >>1964 would still look that good. Looks as if there has been a dub to VHS
at some point, judging by the occasional noise-bar dropouts.
What is interesting is that there are none of the image orthicon >>black-haloed highlights (eg of the on-camera light reflected in NM's
trademark specs). Would Plumbicons or other similar camera tubes be used >>that long ago?
Ampex developed the Quadruplex VT format in the mid-1950s, so it was >>probably fairly well established by 1964. I hadn't realised that they
developed a helical format (as used in VHS and in all non-Quad formats)
as early as 1963 - if Wikipedia is to be believed.
The Plumbicon tube dates from 1963, and colour cameras that used them
were probably in use by some broadcasters well before the official
start of broadcasting in colour, or even before any decisions on which
system would be used. It's possible that some programmes were recorded
in colour even if broadcast in monochrome, possibly this one. (Since
it's a German broadcast, I think we can assume that if the original
was in colour, it would be PAL).
Rod.
(_Was_ an on-camera light a common thing?)
On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:56:48 +0100, charles wrote:
ISTR that Pres A used vidicon camera for B&W, but I might be wrong. We
certainly used vidicon tubes in the Fernseh Standards Converters.
At ATV London we had Pye vidicon telecines with optical multiplexing for >35mm, 16mm and slides. We also had a vidicon camera for the clock and
title captions.
Also: I've often wondered if interlacing was ever achieved in a telecine machine by having _two_ line sensors (CRT or line-of-CCD) a very precise distance apart along the film path (before a full frame store was
practical)? Whenever I try to figure out if this would work (by working
out the sequence and positioning - odd-field sensor, even-field sensor, toggling sensor along the path; film at half speed, double speed;
whatever), my brain hurts. Ignoring any question of whether the mechanical tolerance required was practical.
What is "optical multiplexing" - you mean it had mirrors and prisms to
switch between the three formats, or something else?
What was the sensor in a Cintel TC with a rotating prism to allow
continuous film motion but which the prism converts to a stationary
image for the sensor
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:AGKAWkqLYrjiFwa$@a.a...
Also: I've often wondered if interlacing was ever achieved in a
telecine machine by having _two_ line sensors (CRT or line-of-CCD) a
very precise distance apart along the film path (before a full frame
store was practical)? Whenever I try to figure out if this would work
(by working out the sequence and positioning - odd-field sensor, >>even-field sensor, toggling sensor along the path; film at half
speed, double speed; whatever), my brain hurts. Ignoring any question
of whether the mechanical tolerance required was practical.
I presume a flying spot telecine was inherently interlaced by the
interlaced raster that scanned the film. Ditto for >camera-looking-at-film-frame telecines. But this needed intermittent
film motion. A
modern row-of-pixels telecine would be non-interlaced but it would be
trivial to read the frame into a frame store and play it out
interlaced. What was the sensor in a Cintel TC with a rotating prism to
allow continuous film motion but which the prism converts to a
stationary image for the sensor. The optics of those *really* made my
brain hurt - the whole concept sounded magical.
Were there any other types of telecine?
Yes, if the flying spot moved in two dimensions. (It needs not only intermittent film motion, but _fast_ pulldown, within one flyback
interval, with the film stabilised and static in time.) I think some telecines might have used a single-line spot (or two of them).
On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:30:07 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Yes, if the flying spot moved in two dimensions. (It needs not only
intermittent film motion, but _fast_ pulldown, within one flyback
interval, with the film stabilised and static in time.) I think some
telecines might have used a single-line spot (or two of them).
Early flying spot telecines such as the EMI ones were continuous motion
twin lens machines with a rotating shutter blade which guided the scanning raster through each lens in turn for the two fields onto the photo- multiplier. The Cintel Mk2 was also a continuous motion twin lens
machine. The Cintel Mk3 first generation had a 'hopping patch' where the
crt had 2 separate rasters, one for each field and the geometry of the patches had to be perfectly matched and positioned to create a correctly registered interlaced output. Later Mk3s had 'Digiscan' (Cintel
registered trademark) which used a single patch and a framestore to
generate the interlaced output.
The latest telecine machines use a Xenon lamp shining through a very thin horizotal line through the film onto three single line CCD sensors for RGB and a framestore generates progressive or interlaced outputs as required.
I presume any telecine with a single row of sensors has to keep the
sensor *very* clean of dust/dirt, or else have good error correction, to
cope with stuck pixels due to dirt that covers one of the pixels.
On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:30:07 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Yes, if the flying spot moved in two dimensions. (It needs not only
intermittent film motion, but _fast_ pulldown, within one flyback
interval, with the film stabilised and static in time.) I think some
telecines might have used a single-line spot (or two of them).
Early flying spot telecines such as the EMI ones were continuous motion
twin lens machines with a rotating shutter blade which guided the scanning >raster through each lens in turn for the two fields onto the photo- >multiplier.
The Cintel Mk2 was also a continuous motion twin lens
machine. The Cintel Mk3 first generation had a 'hopping patch' where the
crt had 2 separate rasters, one for each field and the geometry of the >patches had to be perfectly matched and positioned to create a correctly >registered interlaced output.
Later Mk3s had 'Digiscan' (Cintel
registered trademark) which used a single patch and a framestore to
generate the interlaced output.
The latest telecine machines use a Xenon lamp shining through a very thin >horizotal line through the film onto three single line CCD sensors for RGB >and a framestore generates progressive or interlaced outputs as required.
Once the "beam" is no longer the _source_ of the light (but a constant backlight is used, in the receiver), so there isn't a flicker problem,
does interlacing have any advantage these days?
I'm puzzled by scanning _raster_ with continuous motion; I thought
continuous motion mean a scanning _line_. Or was the raster used to
change speed ...
Let me try to understand that. Film is moving past - odd field is scanned; >then even field is scanned, by putting the raster where the film frame has >now moved to - and the hopping patch raster then moves back, so as to do
the odd field of frame 2. Yes, I can see that working: the aspect ratio of >the hopping rasters presumably being distorted because the film it is >scanning is moving. By the scanning line also moving longitudinally, the >problem of needing an ever-increasing number of static line sensors is >avoided. Clever. I think maybe it _couldn't_ be done - with continuous
motion - if the scanning line does _not_ also move along the film. Though
I still feel it _ought_ to be possible!
Does interlacing give smoother motion because each frame is made up of two >half-resolution images which are taken 1/50 second apart, rather than one >image taken every 1/25 second.
But it causes problems when you want to
capture a still image.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 02:34:57 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I'm puzzled by scanning _raster_ with continuous motion; I thought
continuous motion mean a scanning _line_. Or was the raster used to
change speed ...
The film motion provides half the vertical scan amplitude so the raster is >half normal height. Anyway, a constant single line on a crt would cause a >severe phosphor burn, a raster was bad enough, requiring eventual tube
change when the burn was no longer capable of being cancelled out by the
burn corrector circuit.
Let me try to understand that. Film is moving past - odd field is scanned; >>then even field is scanned, by putting the raster where the film frame has >>now moved to - and the hopping patch raster then moves back, so as to do >>the odd field of frame 2. Yes, I can see that working: the aspect ratio of >>the hopping rasters presumably being distorted because the film it is >>scanning is moving. By the scanning line also moving longitudinally, the >>problem of needing an ever-increasing number of static line sensors is >>avoided. Clever. I think maybe it _couldn't_ be done - with continuous >>motion - if the scanning line does _not_ also move along the film. Though
I still feel it _ought_ to be possible!
You're confusing yourself by mixing different machines - those using a crt >don't use 'static line sensors', if you mean CCD chips.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 15:08:51 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I've never heard of a burn corrector circuit - was this something
particular to telecine machines?
The burn corrector in a Cintel Mk3 telecine had a bunch of waveform >generators making vertical and horizontal sawteeth, parabolas and
parabolas squared (IIRC). These were mixed together in adjustable
amplitudes to generate an equal and opposite polarity waveform to be mixed >(multiplied I think) with the video such as to cancel any shading caused
by phosphor burn.
I've never heard of a burn corrector circuit - was this something
particular to telecine machines?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:JKfCFN9BrCkiFwT0@a.a...
Once the "beam" is no longer the _source_ of the light (but a constant
backlight is used, in the receiver), so there isn't a flicker problem,
does interlacing have any advantage these days?
My thoughts too. I presume on a modern flat-screen TV the whole image is presented at the same instant, stays there for the full frame period and
then the whole image changes simultaneously to the next frame. Give or
take a brief period for pixels to change.
Presumably the DVB standard could have been designed so it was always progressive scan, with any interlacing being generated at a set-top box
that gave an analogue output for an old CRT (or LCD) TV.
Does interlacing give smoother motion because each frame is made up of
two half-resolution images which are taken 1/50 second apart, rather
than one image taken every 1/25 second. But it causes problems when you
want to capture a still image.
On Fri, 27 May 2022 09:06:17 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Does interlacing give smoother motion because each frame is made up of two >> half-resolution images which are taken 1/50 second apart, rather than one
image taken every 1/25 second.
Yes.
But it causes problems when you want to
capture a still image.
Yes again.
Television wasn't invented as a means of taking still images, which is
why in its original analogue form it has no provision for this, and
when it is attempted the results are not very good.
P. S.: my 'checker wants to change "telecine" to "Tolkien"!
On 27/05/2022 09:06, NY wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:JKfCFN9BrCkiFwT0@a.a...
Once the "beam" is no longer the _source_ of the light (but a constant
backlight is used, in the receiver), so there isn't a flicker problem,
does interlacing have any advantage these days?
My thoughts too. I presume on a modern flat-screen TV the whole image is
presented at the same instant, stays there for the full frame period and
then the whole image changes simultaneously to the next frame. Give or
take a brief period for pixels to change.
Presumably the DVB standard could have been designed so it was always
progressive scan, with any interlacing being generated at a set-top box
that gave an analogue output for an old CRT (or LCD) TV.
Does interlacing give smoother motion because each frame is made up of
two half-resolution images which are taken 1/50 second apart, rather
than one image taken every 1/25 second. But it causes problems when you
want to capture a still image.
I think the interlace is to reduce flicker rather than give smoother
motion as the eye is very sensitive to flicker.
I too worked on Mk1/2 and 3 (hopping patch) twin lens telecines and
trying to describe the interaction between the continuously moving film,
the twin lenses, the scanning rasters and moving shutters is almost impossible! - if I may - 'well done' to 'The Other John' for giving it
a very good bash!
If you look closely at the video, and you do have to look very closely,
you can see the blemishes that reveal it to have been part of a
telerecording process at one time. If you look at Nina's cheek areas in
the section you mention you can see the occasional blemishes etc. High
quality 625 line mono film telerecordings were still in regular use in
the early sixties despite the widespread introduction of videotape
throughout the industry. Later on it appears to have been transferred
to a domestic format - VHS (usually) and the burnt in timecode
generally referred to as BITC is pretty much a marker that what we have
here is/was a viewing copy and not for tx. The occasional rolling bars
of wide noise would not be symptomatic of a professional broadcast
format, its like VHS or Betamax.
I too worked on Mk1/2 and 3 (hopping patch) twin lens telecines and
trying to describe the interaction between the continuously moving
film, the twin lenses, the scanning rasters and moving shutters is
almost impossible! - if I may - 'well done' to 'The Other John' for
giving it a very good bash!
On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 13:00:06, joe bloggs
<reel.sounds.of...@gmail.com> wrote (my responses usually
FOLLOW):
I presume there's a technical film somewhere from the manufacturers
showing how it works - which will turn up on YouTube eventually,
hopefully!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If vegetarians eat vegetables,..beware of humanitarians!
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:17:32 AM UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 13:00:06, joe bloggs
<reel.sounds.of...@gmail.com> wrote (my responses usually
FOLLOW):
I presume there's a technical film somewhere from the manufacturers
showing how it works - which will turn up on YouTube eventually,
hopefully!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If vegetarians eat vegetables,..beware of humanitarians!
I still have my generic telecine notes from 1975 on how various types
of telecine work(ed). They are not manufacturers notes, they're course
notes - but not BBC course notes! But I have no way to post them for
you or indeed anyone to view - assuming you were even interested to see
them?
There is an additional problem when there are film inserts. While the
films are scanned as odd first then even, telecine records even first then the subsequent odd, leading to actual double images - again, this is very evident on Hancock's Half Hour, particulartly on trains.
There were 3 types of telecine in the period you refer to.
Camera - basically a camera pointing at a projected screen (much
favoured by news operations as they could 'blast' a lot of light
through indifferently exposed film to improve the overall results).
Polygonal - rotating prisms formed by surfaces on a rotating drum, much >higher quality than a camera telecine and used the scanning crt method.
One advantage of this type of telecine is that the film can be run at
any linear speed but the output is 25fps. This was the machine used in
the Kevin Brownlow series (Telecined by the BBC and recorded down the
line at Thames).
Twin lens - high quality.
Following on from this the industry started to introduce CCD imagers
and all sorts of subsequent wizardry (I lost interest at this point!).
What's being described in the previous post is a mixture of film
recording devices and telecine machines - they are not the same.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 123:51:54 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,705 |