[QuadList] OB Film Vs. Studio Video

[Chris Patten]

The real reason that exterior shots in many BBC programs were shot on film 
and not video was nothing to do with technology and everything to do with 
unions and demarcation disputes.  The BBC video guys were in the ABS union. 
The film guys who worked at the BBC were in the ACTT union they spent most 
of their time fighting to protect their well paid jobs.  This link details 
some of the battles:

http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/insidetv/history/union.php

Regards
Chris
Sydney

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sammy Jones" <sjones69 at bellsouth.net>
To: <quadlist at quadvideotapegroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:49 PM
Subject: [QuadList] OB Film Vs. Studio Video


> Actually the Restoration Team (the self-appointed title of the group that
> handles the Doctor Who DVD releases) takes special care in film sequences.
> Whenever possible, they are re-scanned on the state-of-the-art Spirit
> Datacine and reinserted into the episode.  On episodes where only film
> recordings exist (like American kinescopes), the footage that was 
> originally
> quad video is treated with VidFire to look like video again, while the 
> film
> inserts are left as 25 fps progressive film.  This is the case with all of
> the '60s episodes, and some of the early '70s episodes.
>
> Here's their site:  http://restoration-team.co.uk .
>
> Yes, Tom Baker was a great Doctor, but I'm actually partial to all of the
> first four.  And David Tennant's great, too!
>
> Sammy Jones
>
> Scott Thomas wrote:
>> Makes perfect sense. I did however always notice the change when
>> watching Monty Python and Dr. Who in the early 1980's.
>> Perhaps we can remaster all of that OB film footage and use Optical
>> Flow to temporally upscale the film elements to 25 fps Interlace. :)
>>
>> BTW: Tom Baker will always be "The Doctor" to me. :)
>>
>> Scott Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2010, at 3:05 AM, Trevor Brown wrote:
>>
>> > David
>> > In the UK we did tend to hang onto the practice of film for outdoor
>> inserts
>> > ENG was restricted to news
>> >
>> > I think at the time there were problems that ENG was not studio
>> quality
>> > But was OK for news because it was better than the fast processed pos
>> film
>> > that it replaced
>> >
>> > This was not the case for full blown production were neg film was
>> used
>> >
>> > The general feeling now is that film inserts into studio productions
>> do Jar
>> > a little on the cuts
>> > You can get away with it on sitcom, but drama you are more sucked
>> into, and
>> > the cuts do hurt
>> >
>> > The ITV company I worked for was very keen on solving this problem
>> and set
>> > up a two camera OB truck
>> > With a Quad VT (TR61) in the same truck
>> >
>> > Not easy to work next to racks guys they keep turning the lights off
>> > So you cannot see the mechanical tape counter to log takes on the
>> paperwork
>> > Or work the waveform monitor, and if you have to adjust any of
>> presets on
>> > the modules ...............
>> >
>> > OK for them they just put their hands on the Joysticks and watch
>> monitors
>> >
>> > Happy Days
>> > Trevor
>> > UK Member
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please trim posts to relevant info when replying!
> Send QuadList list posts to QuadList at quadvideotapegroup.com
> Your subscribe, unsubscribe and digest options are here:
> http://mail.quadvideotapegroup.com/mailman/listinfo/quadlist_quadvideotapegroup.com
>
>