There have been many broadcasts over the last couple of days of what the >first programmes on BBC radio would have sounded like. Why do they
always have to add a heterodyne to the sound?
There have been many broadcasts over the last couple of days of what the first programmes on BBC radio would have sounded like. Why do they always have to add a heterodyne to the sound?
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 23:25:18 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
There have been many broadcasts over the last couple of days of what the >>first programmes on BBC radio would have sounded like. Why do they
always have to add a heterodyne to the sound?
Probably the same reason they always add scratches and bounces to what
is supposed to be old black and white film, or superimposed lines with >horizontal tearing to what is supposed to be old television or
videotape material.
It will have been done by people who have no understanding of the
technology and are not old enough to have any experience of the real
thing, so have no idea how good it could be when done properly.
On 15/11/2022 11:58, Scott wrote:
Nobody is old enough to experience the real thing with the first
programmes on the BBC 😄
But there are plenty of people who have listened to AM radio on radio receivers that are not that different from ones used in the early 1920s.
On 15/11/2022 11:58, Scott wrote:
Nobody is old enough to experience the real thing with the first
programmes on the BBC ?
But there are plenty of people who have listened to AM radio on radio >receivers that are not that different from ones used in the early 1920s.
Nobody is old enough to experience the real thing with the first
programmes on the BBC 😄
On 15/11/2022 11:58, Scott wrote:
Nobody is old enough to experience the real thing with the first
programmes on the BBC 😄
But there are plenty of people who have listened to AM radio on radio receivers that are not that different from ones used in the early 1920s.
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 23:25:18 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
There have been many broadcasts over the last couple of days of what the
first programmes on BBC radio would have sounded like. Why do they
always have to add a heterodyne to the sound?
Probably the same reason they always add scratches and bounces to what
is supposed to be old black and white film, or superimposed lines with horizontal tearing to what is supposed to be old television or
videotape material.
It will have been done by people who have no understanding of the
technology and are not old enough to have any experience of the real
thing, so have no idea how good it could be when done properly.
On 15/11/2022 09:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
It will have been done by people who have no understanding of the
technology and are not old enough to have any experience of the real
thing, so have no idea how good it could be when done properly.
It is particularly funny when "people who have no understanding of the technology" get it wrong and add an effect for the wrong technology.
I saw a documentary about the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege in London,
which used the well-known shots of the SAS soldiers abseiling down the
walls and clambering from one balcony to another, and the flash-bang of
the stun grenades.
Very obviously shot with TV (video) cameras and recorded on videotape.
The slightly garish colours, the clipping on highlights and the absence
of film grain and bob/weave made it abundantly clear what technology had
been used.
But some "herbert", who probably hadn't even been born in 1980, had
thought "this is archive material - we need a way to distinguish it
visibly from the modern-day interviews". So they added fake *film*
scratches and dirt.
On 15/11/2022 12:38, MB wrote:
On 15/11/2022 11:58, Scott wrote:The early 1920s sets would often have been superregenerative receivers,
Nobody is old enough to experience the real thing with the first
programmes on the BBC 😄
But there are plenty of people who have listened to AM radio on radio
receivers that are not that different from ones used in the early
1920s.
not superheterodyne ones, and I have not seen a superregen receiver for
sale commercially in my lifetime.
The superregen types used to interfere with each other's reception if
the tuning of one of them was even slightly off.
On 15/11/2022 15:02, NY wrote:
On 15/11/2022 09:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
It will have been done by people who have no understanding of the
technology and are not old enough to have any experience of the real
thing, so have no idea how good it could be when done properly.
It is particularly funny when "people who have no understanding of the
technology" get it wrong and add an effect for the wrong technology.
I saw a documentary about the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege in London,
which used the well-known shots of the SAS soldiers abseiling down the
walls and clambering from one balcony to another, and the flash-bang of
the stun grenades.
Very obviously shot with TV (video) cameras and recorded on videotape.
The slightly garish colours, the clipping on highlights and the absence
of film grain and bob/weave made it abundantly clear what technology had
been used.
But some "herbert", who probably hadn't even been born in 1980, had
thought "this is archive material - we need a way to distinguish it
visibly from the modern-day interviews". So they added fake *film*
scratches and dirt.
Is it likely that this sort of thing happens because both the editors
and compilers are now from an arts background, rather than being advised
by the engineering department about how to restore the footage when
asked to dig into the archives?
Is there any requirement to distinguish between current and archive
material? On the news, if they are showing a clip from 10 years
earlier, it would seem eminently sensible to distinguish it in some
way.
I remember my late father phoning his brother in Canada to say how
well the Canadian was doing in the snooker only to find he was
watching a year old video recording by mistake.
On 15/11/2022 17:08, Scott wrote:
Is there any requirement to distinguish between current and archiveIn technical terms, no, but for artistic reasons, the programme creators
material? On the news, if they are showing a clip from 10 years
earlier, it would seem eminently sensible to distinguish it in some
way.
may want to distinguish them, especially if they want to make a point
about attitudes changing. As for news programmes, maybe showing an on
screen date might do the job that adding scratches and such does?
I remember my late father phoning his brother in Canada to say how
well the Canadian was doing in the snooker only to find he was
watching a year old video recording by mistake.
On 15/11/2022 17:08, Scott wrote:
Is there any requirement to distinguish between current and archiveIn technical terms, no, but for artistic reasons, the programme creators
material? On the news, if they are showing a clip from 10 years
earlier, it would seem eminently sensible to distinguish it in some
way.
may want to distinguish them, especially if they want to make a point
about attitudes changing. As for news programmes, maybe showing an on
screen date might do the job that adding scratches and such does?
I remember my late father phoning his brother in Canada to say how:-)
well the Canadian was doing in the snooker only to find he was
watching a year old video recording by mistake.
On 15/11/2022 19:03, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:31:02 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2022 17:08, Scott wrote:
Is there any requirement to distinguish between current and archiveIn technical terms, no, but for artistic reasons, the programme creators >>> may want to distinguish them, especially if they want to make a point
material? On the news, if they are showing a clip from 10 years
earlier, it would seem eminently sensible to distinguish it in some
way.
about attitudes changing. As for news programmes, maybe showing an on
screen date might do the job that adding scratches and such does?
What about legal considerations? Would it not be misleading viewers
to show a 10 year old news clip without identifying it in some way
that goes beyond small print?
What about programmes that degrade reconstructed footage to make the it
look "genuine"?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:31:02 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2022 17:08, Scott wrote:
Is there any requirement to distinguish between current and archiveIn technical terms, no, but for artistic reasons, the programme creators
material? On the news, if they are showing a clip from 10 years
earlier, it would seem eminently sensible to distinguish it in some
way.
may want to distinguish them, especially if they want to make a point
about attitudes changing. As for news programmes, maybe showing an on
screen date might do the job that adding scratches and such does?
What about legal considerations? Would it not be misleading viewers
to show a 10 year old news clip without identifying it in some way
that goes beyond small print?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:05:38 +0000, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 23:25:18 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:Nobody is old enough to experience the real thing with the first
There have been many broadcasts over the last couple of days of what the >>>first programmes on BBC radio would have sounded like. Why do they
always have to add a heterodyne to the sound?
Probably the same reason they always add scratches and bounces to what
is supposed to be old black and white film, or superimposed lines with >>horizontal tearing to what is supposed to be old television or
videotape material.
It will have been done by people who have no understanding of the >>technology and are not old enough to have any experience of the real
thing, so have no idea how good it could be when done properly.
programmes on the BBC :-)
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 19:54:19 +0000, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 19:48:16 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2022 19:03, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:31:02 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2022 17:08, Scott wrote:
Is there any requirement to distinguish between current and archive >>>>>> material? On the news, if they are showing a clip from 10 yearsIn technical terms, no, but for artistic reasons, the programme
earlier, it would seem eminently sensible to distinguish it in some >>>>>> way.
creators may want to distinguish them, especially if they want to
make a point about attitudes changing. As for news programmes, maybe >>>>> showing an on screen date might do the job that adding scratches and >>>>> such does?
What about legal considerations? Would it not be misleading viewers
to show a 10 year old news clip without identifying it in some way
that goes beyond small print?
What about programmes that degrade reconstructed footage to make the it >>>look "genuine"?
I would say it could be a legitimate device if - say - Panorama wanted
to distinguish between the present and archive material. I can see that
a news headline 'New allegations have emerged about the disgraced former
DJ, Jimmy Savile' ought to be presented in a way that makes it clear
this is part of the narrative and not something that happened yesterday.
Not disgraced before he died,though.
I can remember watching 405 line television in the 1950s, but don't
recall any of the sideways jumping and tearing that is often added as
an effect by modern programmes when they attempt to duplicate it.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 19:48:16 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2022 19:03, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:31:02 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2022 17:08, Scott wrote:
Is there any requirement to distinguish between current and archiveIn technical terms, no, but for artistic reasons, the programme
material? On the news, if they are showing a clip from 10 years
earlier, it would seem eminently sensible to distinguish it in some
way.
creators may want to distinguish them, especially if they want to
make a point about attitudes changing. As for news programmes, maybe
showing an on screen date might do the job that adding scratches and
such does?
What about legal considerations? Would it not be misleading viewers
to show a 10 year old news clip without identifying it in some way
that goes beyond small print?
What about programmes that degrade reconstructed footage to make the it >>look "genuine"?
I would say it could be a legitimate device if - say - Panorama wanted
to distinguish between the present and archive material. I can see that
a news headline 'New allegations have emerged about the disgraced former
DJ, Jimmy Savile' ought to be presented in a way that makes it clear
this is part of the narrative and not something that happened yesterday.
Because they can.
In my view I'd imaging lightening crashes might be more realistic!
Brian
On 15/11/2022 09:05, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 23:25:18 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
There have been many broadcasts over the last couple of days of what the >>> first programmes on BBC radio would have sounded like. Why do they
always have to add a heterodyne to the sound?
Probably the same reason they always add scratches and bounces to what
is supposed to be old black and white film, or superimposed lines with
horizontal tearing to what is supposed to be old television or
videotape material.
It will have been done by people who have no understanding of the
technology and are not old enough to have any experience of the real
thing, so have no idea how good it could be when done properly.
It is particularly funny when "people who have no understanding of the technology" get it wrong and add an effect for the wrong technology.
The most absurd example I recall are recent programmes of Click on BBC
News. They discussed the TV trials at the BBC which compared Baird's 240
line mechanical system with EMI's all-electronic 405 line one. They
implied that Baird's was the *30 line* system (only used experimentally)
and even showed the images side by side on the screen. And then repeated
the error a couple of weeks later on a different episode.
Not disgraced before he died,though.
What about programmes that degrade reconstructed footage to make the it >>>>look "genuine"?
I would say it could be a legitimate device if - say - Panorama wanted
to distinguish between the present and archive material. I can see that >>> a news headline 'New allegations have emerged about the disgraced former >>> DJ, Jimmy Savile' ought to be presented in a way that makes it clear
this is part of the narrative and not something that happened yesterday.
Not disgraced before he died,though.
That is a different point altogether more to do with the culture of
the organisation than any technical aspects of broadcasting.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:tl2ihq$2bet8$1@dont-email.me...
The most absurd example I recall are recent programmes of Click on BBC
News. They discussed the TV trials at the BBC which compared Baird's
240 line mechanical system with EMI's all-electronic 405 line one.
They implied that Baird's was the *30 line* system (only used
experimentally) and even showed the images side by side on the screen.
And then repeated the error a couple of weeks later on a different
episode.
The distinction between Baird's 30-line and 240-line systems definitely
needs to be made clearer: a lot of info about old TV systems mentions
the 30-line system and is less forthcoming about the 240-line system. I
was well into adulthood before I was aware that there had been a
240-line system.
There have been news articles/demonstrations about modern reconstruction
of 30-line images that had been recorded on gramophone-type discs. I
presume there are no equivalents for 240-line because technology for recording those images did not exist: frequencies were too high to
record mechanically, and spinning-head videotape technology was not
developed until the 1950s. Were film recordings ever made of Baird's
240-line broadcasts, either for archiving or for repeating shortly after
the original live broadcast?
On 16/11/2022 09:20, jon wrote:
Not disgraced before he died,though.
Always suspicious of allegations that are treated as true without any >evidence. The ones against Prince Andrew seem to be unravelling.
Since Baird's system involved a cine film intermediary perhaps some of
those films still exist. Were EMI's TV trials cine filmed; I mean from the
TV screen? I would have thought that both would have been filmed so people not present at the original showings could compare them.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >news:tl34vj$2d1so$1@dont-email.me...
Since Baird's system involved a cine film intermediary perhaps some of
those films still exist. Were EMI's TV trials cine filmed; I mean from the >> TV screen? I would have thought that both would have been filmed so people >> not present at the original showings could compare them.
Ah. I'd forgotten that Baird's system used intermediate film which was then >scanned (after very rapid processing and fixing). How did they scan the
film? Was it a mechanical scanner (a lens which moved rapidly across the >film, focussing a different part of the image onto a static sensor) - like a >mechanical version of a flying spot scanner? I should have remembered about >the film - I remember in Jack Rosenthal's drama "The Fools on the Hill"
about the "trial of the standards" the scene where the actress/presenter >noticed that the hem of her dress was wet and the director said "Bugger, the >tank of fixer has leaked again"... and there were puddles of highly
poisonous fixer (or maybe it was developer) all over the studio floor.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 105:21:18 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,313 |