BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels
very odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart
from London: those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong
with their feeds to BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, >Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: >those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were >stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to >featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to
BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
On 09/09/2022 13:48, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:18:22 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >>> odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, >>> Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: >>> those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures wereI didn't see it, but I guess it was better than the level of detail in
stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to >>> featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to >>> BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically). >>
the surviving pictures of her first engagement. The Coronation
broadcast was recorded on film because no practical method of
recording television signals had been invented yet. To the best of my
knowledge they used the skipped field method (sometimes called "drop
frame" in old books because the meanings of the words have changed)
where only every alternate field was photographed from a CRT display
in order to get a full height picture. Thus, the 377 picture lines in
a 405 line signal have been recorded on film with a resolution of
188.5 lines.
I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was >flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
look old).
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:18:22 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >> odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast,
Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London:
those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were
stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to
featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to
BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
I didn't see it, but I guess it was better than the level of detail in
the surviving pictures of her first engagement. The Coronation
broadcast was recorded on film because no practical method of
recording television signals had been invented yet. To the best of my knowledge they used the skipped field method (sometimes called "drop
frame" in old books because the meanings of the words have changed)
where only every alternate field was photographed from a CRT display
in order to get a full height picture. Thus, the 377 picture lines in
a 405 line signal have been recorded on film with a resolution of
188.5 lines.
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels
very odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart
from London: those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong
with their feeds to BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
On 09/09/2022 13:48, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:18:22 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >> odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, >> Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: >> those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were
stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to >> featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to >> BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
I didn't see it, but I guess it was better than the level of detail in
the surviving pictures of her first engagement. The Coronation
broadcast was recorded on film because no practical method of
recording television signals had been invented yet. To the best of my knowledge they used the skipped field method (sometimes called "drop
frame" in old books because the meanings of the words have changed)
where only every alternate field was photographed from a CRT display
in order to get a full height picture. Thus, the 377 picture lines in
a 405 line signal have been recorded on film with a resolution of
188.5 lines.
I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
look old).
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to
BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered
identically).
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was
flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
look old).
I heard somewhere that the Rank Organisation stored the original colour negative so badly that the colour was degraded.
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 14:22:52 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 09/09/2022 13:48, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:18:22 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >>>> odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, >>>> Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: >>>> those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were >>>> stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to >>>> featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to >>>> BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
I didn't see it, but I guess it was better than the level of detail in
the surviving pictures of her first engagement. The Coronation
broadcast was recorded on film because no practical method of
recording television signals had been invented yet. To the best of my
knowledge they used the skipped field method (sometimes called "drop
frame" in old books because the meanings of the words have changed)
where only every alternate field was photographed from a CRT display
in order to get a full height picture. Thus, the 377 picture lines in
a 405 line signal have been recorded on film with a resolution of
188.5 lines.
I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was
flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and
US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
look old).
They repeated the whole thing, all 5 or 6 hours of it, some years ago
on one of the significant anniversaries. I managed to get the whole
thing on a single DVD without any quality loss because it was so poor
to begin with.
On 09/09/2022 13:18, NY wrote:
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels
very odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations
(Belfast, Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart
from London: those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge
pictures were stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get
dissolving away to featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong
with their feeds to BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which
suffered identically).
4G bandwidth problems due to base station capacity limits? I often
suffered for that while I was down there.
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, >Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: >those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were >stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to >featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to
BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
In article <tffbrj$11riq$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> scribeth thus
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, >Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: >those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were >stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to >featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to >BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered identically).
The audio wasn't much cop either!..
Some of the guns were hardly audible!..
--
Tony Sayer
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:jo0qh0...@mid.individual.net...
On 09/09/2022 13:18, NY wrote:
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels
very odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations
(Belfast, Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart
from London: those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge
pictures were stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get
dissolving away to featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong >> with their feeds to BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which >> suffered identically).
4G bandwidth problems due to base station capacity limits? I often suffered for that while I was down there.Do they actually use 4G for camera-to-studio links sometimes, rather than using satellite or (if available) land-line links? No wonder the pictures were bit-starved at times. Looking at the side-on shot of the guns in Hyde Park, they really were baaaaaaad. Every few seconds, the blades of grass and the leaves on the trees disappeared into a featureless green mush, then they returned (well, a little bit) before vanishing again.
When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from the gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300 m/second. Sometimes they get it spot on and the muzzle flash and/or the start of the puff of smoke is seen just as you hear the bang, Other times there's a disconcerting 1/2 second (or worse) offset between the two.
In article <tffbrj$11riq$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
scribeth thus
BBC1 has just shown the various gun salutes to Elizabeth II (it feels very >>odd not to call her HM The Queen) and all the various locations (Belfast, >>Gibraltar, Plymouth, Jersey, York) had good pictures. Apart from London: >>those from Hyde Park and to a lesser extent Tower Bridge pictures were >>stonkingly bad: very low bit rate and detail that get dissolving away to >>featureless grass and water. I wonder what went wrong with their feeds to >>BBC and ITV (ITV were taking the same pictures which suffered
identically).
The audio wasn't much cop either!..
Some of the guns were hardly audible!..
--
Tony Sayer
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was >>> flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and >>> US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version
which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it
look old).
They repeated the whole thing, all 5 or 6 hours of it, some years ago
on one of the significant anniversaries. I managed to get the whole
thing on a single DVD without any quality loss because it was so poor
to begin with.
What, the TV to film version? Why, when the colour cine version is
available?
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 17:28:19 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I'm not sure I've seen the TV->film version of the Coronation (which was >>>> flown by the RAF across the Atlantic for the benefit of our Canadian and >>>> US cousins when they got up); usually they show the cine camera version >>>> which is good quality colour (but they often show it in b/w to make it >>>> look old).
They repeated the whole thing, all 5 or 6 hours of it, some years ago
on one of the significant anniversaries. I managed to get the whole
thing on a single DVD without any quality loss because it was so poor
to begin with.
What, the TV to film version? Why, when the colour cine version is
available?
Yes, they repeated the entire broadcast, more or less to match the
same timetable as the original occasion. A lot of it was brief shots
of the procession through the streets, or rooftop shots while waiting
for the procession to appear, accompanied by ponderous commentary. It
was an attempt to recreate a piece of broadcasting history. The
ceremony itself, as you say, had been covered by film cameras, but
that wasn't what this was about. The intent was to show what a
television viewer in 1953 would have seen, in real time.
I only remember little bits of the original occasion, but then I was
only five.
When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct
for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from the gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300 m/second.
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 20:41:00 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct
for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from
the
gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300
m/second.
How would you expect them to do that, apart from moving the microphone
to where the sound is?
I would like something similar of the 2001 WTC attack. I saw bits of
the broadcast but didn't think to record it. Like when was it clear the towers would collapse. Documentaries don't have the same feel as they
are edited compilations.
"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message >news:slrnthptkn.5qtg.abuse@news.pr.network...
On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 20:41:00 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct >>> for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from
the
gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300
m/second.
How would you expect them to do that, apart from moving the microphone
to where the sound is?
Delay unit between sound and vision. Could just as easily be corrected
during editing in the case of a recording, or at the studio that is
receiving in the case of live pictures.
When guns are being fired for a salute, do the camera crew try to correct >>> for the camera (and therefore the microphone) being some distance from
the
gun, and therefore the sound being delayed by the speed of sound at 300
m/second.
How would you expect them to do that, apart from moving the microphone
to where the sound is?
Delay unit between sound and vision.
Could just as easily be corrected during editing in the case of a
recording
or at the studio that is receiving in the case of live pictures.
In other words, it's a complete non-starter.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:45:48 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,426 |