I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
20).

I know we've discussed the different fading characteristics of the
outside and inside shots on that series before, but today was a prize
example - one character had a fine white beard, which was most
definitely green! And the white horse he was tending was more than a bit
green, too. Virtually all the outside shots were excellent on the green.
Very clear luma, but chroma had definitely seen better days ...

Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
discrepancy?

It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support), but (a) I doubt that would be the case for a small channel
like Drama, (b) if they had, surely they'd have tried to do something
about the colour too? [The other approach - as Channel 5 have done - is
to just redo the series - I can't really understand why: they've done a
fairly excellent job, but - apart from the different picture shape and
the absence of the startling colour changes! - the new series is to me
about equal in entertainment value, not enough to justify the presumably
quite high costs of such an exercise. OK, slight changes in storyline
emphasis.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Do you want to be right, or friends?"
- a friend quoted by Vicky Ayech in UMRA, 2018-12-4

On 16/02/2024 17:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
> 20).
>
> I know we've discussed the different fading characteristics of the
> outside and inside shots on that series before, but today was a prize
> example - one character had a fine white beard, which was most
> definitely green! And the white horse he was tending was more than a bit
> green, too. Virtually all the outside shots were excellent on the green.
> Very clear luma, but chroma had definitely seen better days ...
>
> Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
> starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
> videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
> was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
> shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
> differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
> presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the discrepancy?
>
> It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
> gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
> re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
> support), but (a) I doubt that would be the case for a small channel
> like Drama, (b) if they had, surely they'd have tried to do something
> about the colour too? [The other approach - as Channel 5 have done - is
> to just redo the series - I can't really understand why: they've done a
> fairly excellent job, but - apart from the different picture shape and
> the absence of the startling colour changes! - the new series is to me
> about equal in entertainment value, not enough to justify the presumably
> quite high costs of such an exercise. OK, slight changes in storyline
> emphasis.]

I would imagine that the studio interiors and the filmed exteriors
(usually filmed before the studio scenes) would be assembled into the
final master tape almost as soon as the studio work was finished. From
that moment on, no further fading of film is possible - you may get all
sorts of artefacts on archived VT, but fading of some shots or colour
bias (especially dominance of some colours even though there is no
overall bias) is not something that happens with VT.

I wonder whether the filmed inserts were kept (as rolls of film) and
therefore are available to be telecined again with more modern
equipment, even with some colour grading.

In message <MR2cnbHEYdIiM1L4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Fri,
16 Feb 2024 18:51:42, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
>On 16/02/2024 17:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama
>>(FreeView 20).
>> I know we've discussed the different fading characteristics of the
>>outside and inside shots on that series before, but today was a prize
>>example - one character had a fine white beard, which was most
>>definitely green! And the white horse he was tending was more than a
>>bit green, too. Virtually all the outside shots were excellent on the
>>green. Very clear luma, but chroma had definitely seen better days ...
>> Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
>>starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
>>videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once
>>that was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for
>>indoor shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
>>differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
>>presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the discrepancy?
>> It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
>>gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
>>re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
>>support), but (a) I doubt that would be the case for a small channel
>>like Drama, (b) if they had, surely they'd have tried to do something
>>about the colour too? [The other approach - as Channel 5 have done -
>>is to just redo the series - I can't really understand why: they've
>>done a fairly excellent job, but - apart from the different picture
>>shape and the absence of the startling colour changes! - the new
>>series is to me about equal in entertainment value, not enough to
>>justify the presumably quite high costs of such an exercise. OK,
>>slight changes in storyline emphasis.]
>
>I would imagine that the studio interiors and the filmed exteriors
>(usually filmed before the studio scenes) would be assembled into the
>final master tape almost as soon as the studio work was finished. From

That's what I would have thought ...

>that moment on, no further fading of film is possible - you may get all
>sorts of artefacts on archived VT, but fading of some shots or colour
>bias (especially dominance of some colours even though there is no
>overall bias) is not something that happens with VT.

.... with the same conclusion.
>
>I wonder whether the filmed inserts were kept (as rolls of film) and
>therefore are available to be telecined again with more modern
>equipment, even with some colour grading.

SOME! Look at today's episode (it's on Drama's website or something -
when I had a recent query about caption cropping [which turned out to be
my set], someone here found it): it's so green as to be highly amusing
to us, startling to the non-technically-minded! I did think of the
possibility of someone finding the film bits and re-scanning (maybe in
HD), but thought anyone willing to re-telecine the film bits would have
also applied some colour correction. Unless it's so far gone that they
thought it wasn't possible - which may be the case: I did think the
images were very _sharp_ (just very green!), so someone may have already
done it. But the indoor scenes - where the colours were fine - didn't
leap out at me as inferior in that respect.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad - I'm better! (Mae West)

On 16/02/2024 21:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <MR2cnbHEYdIiM1L4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Fri,
> 16 Feb 2024 18:51:42, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
>> I wonder whether the filmed inserts were kept (as rolls of film) and
>> therefore are available to be telecined again with more modern
>> equipment, even with some colour grading.
>
> SOME! Look at today's episode (it's on Drama's website or something -
> when I had a recent query about caption cropping [which turned out to be
> my set], someone here found it): it's so green as to be highly amusing
> to us, startling to the non-technically-minded! I did think of the
> possibility of someone finding the film bits and re-scanning (maybe in
> HD), but thought anyone willing to re-telecine the film bits would have
> also applied some colour correction. Unless it's so far gone that they
> thought it wasn't possible - which may be the case: I did think the
> images were very _sharp_ (just very green!), so someone may have already
> done it. But the indoor scenes - where the colours were fine - didn't
> leap out at me as inferior in that respect.

I see what you mean. It's all rather... verdant!

https://i.postimg.cc/CM7z3ZRV/ACGAS-green-beard.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Wb4hT2Zq/ACGAS-green-sky.png
https://i.postimg.cc/qMZg79cb/ACGAS-titles.png

The sky is green and Cliff's beard is green.

The actor is the wonderful Tony Sympson. I remember him in an episode of
The Sweeney in which Regan and Carter were undercover in a pub, and Tony
Sympson played an old man who discovered them and went blabbing "Old
Bill! All over the place!"

The green beard thing reminds me of a wonderful short story by Dorothy L
Sayers about a barber who reads in the paper about a murderer with a
bright red beard. And lo and behold, the very man comes into his shop,
wanting his beard shaving off and his hair dyeing a less conspicuous
colour. The barber decides to mark his man, so he mixes chemicals with a
delayed action - which turns the murder's hair and beard bright green.
It was dramatised as https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0592520/reference/
with the incomparable Hugh Griffith as the bearded murderer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhtKHOvSL8 is a trailer for it - you
see the almost fluorescent red beard, but not the equally luminous green
after he has been marked... and sadly the Youtube account I downloaded
it from has been terminated. But here's a screenshot:
https://i.postimg.cc/cH5P3MDS/vlcsnap-2024-02-17-00h55m40s508.png

In message <51idnUUCAO1umU34nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Sat,
17 Feb 2024 00:59:30, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
>On 16/02/2024 21:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>>(maybe in HD), but thought anyone willing to re-telecine the film
>>bits would have also applied some colour correction. Unless it's so
>>far gone that they thought it wasn't possible - which may be the
>>case: I did think the images were very _sharp_ (just very green!), so
>>someone may have already done it. But the indoor scenes - where the
>>colours were fine - didn't leap out at me as inferior in that respect.
>
>I see what you mean. It's all rather... verdant!

Yes, it's the most extreme one I've seen so far. (The titles are of
course the same piece of film throughout the series, so those remain
pretty green.)
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/CM7z3ZRV/ACGAS-green-beard.png
>https://i.postimg.cc/Wb4hT2Zq/ACGAS-green-sky.png
>https://i.postimg.cc/qMZg79cb/ACGAS-titles.png
>
>The sky is green and Cliff's beard is green.

But excellent resolution: in the middle one above, I almost feel I can
see every hair in the beard. So maybe someone has found the original
film rolls and re-scanned them in HD, but given up on the colour.
[]
>The green beard thing reminds me of a wonderful short story by Dorothy
>L Sayers about a barber who reads in the paper about a murderer with a
>bright red beard. And lo and behold, the very man comes into his shop,
>wanting his beard shaving off and his hair dyeing a less conspicuous
>colour. The barber decides to mark his man, so he mixes chemicals with
>a delayed action - which turns the murder's hair and beard bright
>green. It was dramatised as
>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0592520/reference/ with the incomparable
>Hugh Griffith as the bearded murderer.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhtKHOvSL8 is a trailer for it - you
>see the almost fluorescent red beard, but not the equally luminous
>green after he has been marked... and sadly the Youtube account I
>downloaded it from has been terminated. But here's a screenshot:
>https://i.postimg.cc/cH5P3MDS/vlcsnap-2024-02-17-00h55m40s508.png

I can see why the ACG&S reminded you!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I know people who worry more about the health consequences of drinking a coffee
at breakfast than a bottle of urine at dinner
- Revd Richard Cole, RT 2021/7/3-9

On Fri Feb 16 17:38:14 2024 "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
> I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
> 20).
>
> Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
> starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
> videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
> was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
> shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
> differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
> presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
> discrepancy?

In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK, but by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive control panel which didn't have continuously variable control). On rare occasions PTC might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not as standard

>
> It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
> gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
> re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
> support),

1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK

In message <BOCAN.73723$ds1.3991@fx14.ams1> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024
06:45:53, Bill Posters <bill@foo.bar.baz> writes
>On Fri Feb 16 17:38:14 2024 "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>> I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
>> 20).
>>
>> Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
>> starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
>> videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
>> was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
>> shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
>> differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
>> presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
>> discrepancy?
>
>In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK,
>but by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive control
>panel which didn't have continuously variable control). On rare
>occasions PTC might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not as
>standard
>
But in 1978, the film wouldn't have gone green anyway, so surely the
studio master videotapes wouldn't have the colour differences between
indoor and outdoor scenes that are now so obvious.
>>
>> It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
>> gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
>> re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
>> support),
>
>1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK

Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
_would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
quite HD.

But for whatever reason, re-scanning _now_ is the only reason I can
think of why the differential deterioration is so obvious. And I'm
wondering why, if someone _is_ re-scanning now, they're not
colour-correcting too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that
may never be questioned.

On 19/02/2024 08:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <BOCAN.73723$ds1.3991@fx14.ams1> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024
> Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
> professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
> be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
> _would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
> series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
> quite HD.
>
Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives you
roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a touch
more than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the limit. The
latest 8K cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.

For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like, VCD
is about the best quality you can expect, though some digital
enhancement can be applied if required to make it seem better.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Bill Posters" <bill@foo.bar.baz> wrote in message
news:BOCAN.73723$ds1.3991@fx14.ams1...
> On Fri Feb 16 17:38:14 2024 "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>> I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
>> 20).
>>
>> Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
>> starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
>> videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
>> was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
>> shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
>> differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
>> presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
>> discrepancy?
>
> In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK, but
> by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive control panel
> which didn't have continuously variable control). On rare occasions PTC
> might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not as standard
>
>>
>> It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
>> gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
>> re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
>> support),
>
> 1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK

My subjective impression of 1978 era 16 mm was that it was grainy, muddy,
low in saturation, slightly blurred and somehow flickery - compared with
video.

I can understand all of those except flickery. I accept that in terms of
motion it is 25p rather 50i, in that when there is movement, you only see a
new full-res image every 1/25 second rather than with video where you see a
new half-res picture every 1/50 second which gives smoother motion. But that
doesn't explain why static shots on film look to flicker more than video.

I hadn't realised that the control panel for adjusting the colour,
brightness, contrast and gamma of film was so primitive and not continuously
variable. The only film control I've seen in action was on a demonstration
video at the Bradford Photographic Museum, back in the days when they had a
technical gallery with illustrations by Rex Garrod and Tim Hunkin (The
Secret Life of Machines). That showed a box with two joysticks that could be
moved towards R, G or B points at 120 degrees to each other, with a twist
control for brightness or contrast. One joystick controlled highlights and
the other controlled shadows. They showed someone altering the controls,
from shot to shot, as a film was being transmitted live - nothing seemed to
be prepared in advance with an automated list of timecodes and shot
settings. But maybe that was later technology.

Is/was film white-balanced at the point of shooting, where lighting changed
from shot to shot (eg tungsten to cloudy daylight to sunny)? Did the camera
operator include a shot of a white or 18% grey card lit as for the shot, so
the TK could white balance if there were variations, despite any amber or
blue correction filters that the cam op would have used?

I've noticed that slightly over-exposed skies on film often take on a
strange hue in made-on-film drama in the 1970s-2000. We've seen the green
skies - that was the whole film that seemed to have a green cast: green
skies, green beard, green horse. But I've also seen neutral shots (no
overall colour cast) with magenta skies.

Lest people think I'm film-bashing, the worst unrealistic skies I've ever
seen were on the 1981 (?) production of To Serve Them All My Days which was
almost entirely shot on video. There were shots when the protagonist met his
wife in a Welsh seaside resort, and also shots of them saying goodbye on a
railway station platform, and those tube video cameras really hated
over-exposure of skies, so we got unrealistic baby blue, canary yellow or
pale green skies. And it was too patchy (and not relevant to the plot) for
it to have been graduated filters for effect.

"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:l3gjpoFrlg9U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 19/02/2024 08:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <BOCAN.73723$ds1.3991@fx14.ams1> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024
>> Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
>> professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
>> be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
>> _would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
>> series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
>> quite HD.
>>
> Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
> about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives you
> roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a touch more
> than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the limit. The latest 8K
> cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.
>
> For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like, VCD is
> about the best quality you can expect, though some digital enhancement can
> be applied if required to make it seem better.

My experience of Standard and Super 8 home movies which we had telecined by
a company (ie we didn't do it at home) is that the picture quality is pretty
blurred. I do wonder whether my dad's Super 8 camera may have had a slight
focussing error because even at "infinity" it looks slightly unsharp (*),
whereas any film grain is sharp. Standard 8, despite having a slightly
smaller frame size, looks sharper on Dad's older films, but that may have
been because the grain on earlier film, magnified a bit more, subjectively
sharpened the image slightly - if you take a slightly blurred image and add
random noise, subjectively it looks sharper.

(*) I wonder if the "infinity" setting of the lens was focussing "beyond
infinity" or else slightly closer - which is difficult to determine during
filming if the focussing aid (split-screen) is not correctly adjusted to
match the focal plane of the film. This is an example of a frame from a
Super 8 film on Kodachrome - probably 25 ASA.
https://i.postimg.cc/dVRj0M7X/vlcsnap-2024-02-19-10h29m58s67.png - the
slight film scratches in the sky to the left of the central tower show that
the TK was in focus. I chose a shot where the camera was static and not
weaving around. Probably a fairly wide-angle zoom. Kudos to anyone who
recognises the castle!

On 19/02/2024 10:35, NY wrote:
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:l3gjpoFrlg9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 19/02/2024 08:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <BOCAN.73723$ds1.3991@fx14.ams1> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024
>>> Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
>>> professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
>>> be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
>>> _would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
>>> series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
>>> quite HD.
>>>
>> Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
>> about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives
>> you roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a
>> touch more than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the
>> limit. The latest 8K cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.
>>
>> For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like,
>> VCD is about the best quality you can expect, though some digital
>> enhancement can be applied if required to make it seem better.
>
>
> My experience of Standard and Super 8 home movies which we had telecined
> by a company (ie we didn't do it at home) is that the picture quality is
> pretty blurred. I do wonder whether my dad's Super 8 camera may have had
> a slight focussing error because even at "infinity" it looks slightly
> unsharp (*), whereas any film grain is sharp. Standard 8, despite having
> a slightly smaller frame size, looks sharper on Dad's older films, but
> that may have been because the grain on earlier film, magnified a bit
> more, subjectively sharpened the image slightly - if you take a slightly
> blurred image and add random noise, subjectively it looks sharper.
>
>
> (*) I wonder if the "infinity" setting of the lens was focussing "beyond
> infinity" or else slightly closer - which is difficult to determine
> during filming if the focussing aid (split-screen) is not correctly
> adjusted to match the focal plane of the film. This is an example of a
> frame from a Super 8 film on Kodachrome - probably 25 ASA.
> https://i.postimg.cc/dVRj0M7X/vlcsnap-2024-02-19-10h29m58s67.png - the
> slight film scratches in the sky to the left of the central tower show
> that the TK was in focus. I chose a shot where the camera was static and
> not weaving around. Probably a fairly wide-angle zoom. Kudos to anyone
> who recognises the castle!

As I said, the definition depends to a large extent on the lens quality.
The scan is also severely compressed in the digital domain.

Many home movie cameras, especially the cheaper ones, had a fixed focus
lens, which was set to give acceptable results from a metre or so to
infinity, but which was only really sharp at or near the hyperfocal
distance of about ten metres. Then add in the way that not everybody
kept the lens clean, and you get the typical blur and flare on home
movies of the era.

Good lenses were a lot more expensive in real terms then than they are now.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message <uqvatg$1qt3t$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:35:24,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> writes
>"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:l3gjpoFrlg9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 19/02/2024 08:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <BOCAN.73723$ds1.3991@fx14.ams1> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024
>>> Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
>>> professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
>>> be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
>>> _would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
>>> series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
>>> quite HD.
>>>
>> Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
>>about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives
>>you roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a

Except when I was filming (starting 1972), the standard film available
for 8mm was far below 100 ASA. My old standard 8mm camera (similar if
not identical model to Mr. Zapruder's) had automatic exposure control
set for 10 ASA film; the commonest available, a Kodak product, was 25
ASA, which I sometimes used (looking at what the automatic exposure
wanted to set then manually stopping down a stop and a bit - it had
manual control too), though I usually used 10, as there was one make
(Perutz) that was still available in 10 ASA. (I have a few Agfa reels
too - can't remember whether that was 10 or 25.) [I did once get hold of
some 400, but that got lost being sent away for processing. I suspect
would have been _very_ grainy.]

The commonly-available one for Super 8 was actually 40 ASA (though see
below); given the larger frame size, that was _probably_ similar in
resolution to 25 on standard 8.

>>touch more than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the
>>limit. The latest 8K cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.
>>
>> For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like,
>>VCD is about the best quality you can expect, though some digital
>>enhancement can be applied if required to make it seem better.
>
>
>My experience of Standard and Super 8 home movies which we had
>telecined by a company (ie we didn't do it at home) is that the picture

I'm now using a WinAit (Wolverine, Reflecta, etc. - I _think_ WinAit is
the actual manufacturer). In terms of the actual picture performance (I
use it fully zoomed out, on the assumption that that's 1:1 usage of the
sensor), I think it's on the whole fine: dirt, scratches, and film
"grain" are clear. (Other aspects - mainly, it's extremely fussy re any
damage to the film - though most actual splices, and some distortions,
go through without a murmur, to my surprise. Given how bad my films are
- I was only 12! - I'm happy with it so far.)

>quality is pretty blurred. I do wonder whether my dad's Super 8 camera
>may have had a slight focussing error because even at "infinity" it
>looks slightly unsharp (*), whereas any film grain is sharp. Standard

(I haven't got to any of my Super 8 ones yet.)

>8, despite having a slightly smaller frame size, looks sharper on Dad's
>older films, but that may have been because the grain on earlier film,
>magnified a bit more, subjectively sharpened the image slightly - if
>you take a slightly blurred image and add random noise, subjectively it
>looks sharper.
>
>
>(*) I wonder if the "infinity" setting of the lens was focussing
>"beyond infinity" or else slightly closer - which is difficult to
>determine during filming if the focussing aid (split-screen) is not
>correctly adjusted to match the focal plane of the film. This is an

I _hope_ I don't have such disappointments to come: my Super 8 one was
just a point-and-shoot, no focussing aid (no focussing!); it was a gift
from my great-uncle, so I used it a few times. On the whole I preferred
using the old Bell and Howell Std8 - seemed much more precisely made
(mostly metal), no battery worries (the Super took IIRR 3 AA), exposure
adjustment - oh, and I managed to obtain a tele and a wide
(supplementary) for it.

>example of a frame from a Super 8 film on Kodachrome - probably 25 ASA.

If it's the same as I used (and which the camera was designed for), it
was _exposed_ as 25 outdoors, because it was 40 ASA indoor film,
intended to be shot through a red filter outdoors which reduced it to 25
ASA equivalent. The camera came with a sort of square "key" - normally
lived inside the handle (pistol grip type) - which, when inserted into a
slot somewhere, disengaged the filter, which was normally in place. So
normally _exposed_ as 25 ASA, but I presume the grain size was 40 ASA.

[I found - or, at least, felt - the Perutz was happiest returning
greens, and the Kodak reds and yellows; the Agfa more blues, but I
didn't shoot enough of that to be sure. My feeling may have been
influenced by the colours of the reels they came back on - Perutz green,
Kodak yellow, Agfa orange! From what I've done so far with the WinAit, I
fear - despite being kept on reels in the dark - they've all faded
colour-wise in the fifty-odd years since I shot them )-:.]

>https://i.postimg.cc/dVRj0M7X/vlcsnap-2024-02-19-10h29m58s67.png - the
>slight film scratches in the sky to the left of the central tower show
>that the TK was in focus. I chose a shot where the camera was static
>and not weaving around. Probably a fairly wide-angle zoom. Kudos to
>anyone who recognises the castle!

Bamburgh? (Love the old cars!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Come on, Pooh," and he walked off.
"Where are we going?" said Pooh.
"Nowhere," said Christopher Robin.
So they began going there.
~A.A.Milne

In message <uqva13$1qn84$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:20:16,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> writes
>"Bill Posters" <bill@foo.bar.baz> wrote in message
>news:BOCAN.73723$ds1.3991@fx14.ams1...
>> On Fri Feb 16 17:38:14 2024 "J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
>>> I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
>>> 20).
>>>
>>> Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
>>> starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
>>> videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
>>> was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
>>> shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
>>> differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
>>> presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
>>> discrepancy?
>>
>> In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK,
>>but by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive
>>control panel which didn't have continuously variable control). On
>>rare occasions PTC might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not
>>as standard
>>
>>>
>>> It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
>>> gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
>>> re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
>>> support),
>>
>> 1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK
>
>My subjective impression of 1978 era 16 mm was that it was grainy,
>muddy, low in saturation, slightly blurred and somehow flickery -
>compared with video.
>
>I can understand all of those except flickery. I accept that in terms
>of motion it is 25p rather 50i, in that when there is movement, you
>only see a new full-res image every 1/25 second rather than with video
>where you see a new half-res picture every 1/50 second which gives
>smoother motion. But that doesn't explain why static shots on film look
>to flicker more than video.

It is my understanding that the shutter on most film _projectors_ - as
opposed to cameras, where it was not needed of course - interrupted the
light beam _twice_ per frame (only once being needed for the film
advance), to double the flicker rate. What are you looking at your film
static shots on? I presume a computer monitor, or modern TV, which will
have a much higher refresh rate anyway (and also the light source is not
the image), so I don't know why your impression is what it is!
>
>I hadn't realised that the control panel for adjusting the colour,
>brightness, contrast and gamma of film was so primitive and not
>continuously variable. The only film control I've seen in action was on
>a demonstration video at the Bradford Photographic Museum, back in the
>days when they had a technical gallery with illustrations by Rex Garrod
>and Tim Hunkin (The Secret Life of Machines). That showed a box with
>two joysticks that could be moved towards R, G or B points at 120
>degrees to each other, with a twist control for brightness or contrast.
>One joystick controlled highlights and the other controlled shadows.
>They showed someone altering the controls, from shot to shot, as a film
>was being transmitted live - nothing seemed to be prepared in advance
>with an automated list of timecodes and shot settings. But maybe that
>was later technology.
>
>Is/was film white-balanced at the point of shooting, where lighting
>changed from shot to shot (eg tungsten to cloudy daylight to sunny)?

I think in most cases they used different film stock, though I think
mainly only two types (I don't think I've ever heard of "cloudy" or
"sunny" film, only outdoor and indoor. Usually expressed as a colour
temperature in professional circles?)

>Did the camera operator include a shot of a white or 18% grey card lit
>as for the shot, so the TK could white balance if there were
>variations, despite any amber or blue correction filters that the cam
>op would have used?
>
>I've noticed that slightly over-exposed skies on film often take on a
>strange hue in made-on-film drama in the 1970s-2000. We've seen the
>green skies - that was the whole film that seemed to have a green cast:
>green skies, green beard, green horse. But I've also seen neutral shots
>(no overall colour cast) with magenta skies.

I think the green (especially on ACG&S) is due to film deterioration.
(Though I'm still puzzled why the difference if it was converted to
video at or shortly after shooting, when this wouldn't have happened.)
The colour cast on highlights - such as skies - in transitional period
material was, I understand, due to the increasing use of video cameras
rather than film, where one colour tube saturated but not the total
image, so wasn't noticed at the time (come to think of it, probably mono
viewfinders).
>
>Lest people think I'm film-bashing, the worst unrealistic skies I've
>ever seen were on the 1981 (?) production of To Serve Them All My Days
>which was almost entirely shot on video. There were shots when the
>protagonist met his wife in a Welsh seaside resort, and also shots of
>them saying goodbye on a railway station platform, and those tube video
>cameras really hated over-exposure of skies, so we got unrealistic baby
>blue, canary yellow or pale green skies. And it was too patchy (and not
>relevant to the plot) for it to have been graduated filters for effect.

Orange patches on faces too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Come on, Pooh," and he walked off.
"Where are we going?" said Pooh.
"Nowhere," said Christopher Robin.
So they began going there.
~A.A.Milne

On 19/02/2024 11:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> I think in most cases they used different film stock, though I think
> mainly only two types (I don't think I've ever heard of "cloudy" or
> "sunny" film, only outdoor and indoor. Usually expressed as a colour
> temperature in professional circles?)
>
The norm when I was chatting to a friendly film processing guy at the
time, though I was not on the camera crew, was to use indoor film all
the time, and a colour temperature correction filter when outdoors on
the camera. The higher light levels meant they could afford to lose the
film speed, and it saved them having to stock and carry two different
film types. Exposure meters on set had a selectable filter over the
sensor for outdoor shoots.

Minor colour correction was done in processing, using filters when
converting form negative to positive. (The guy used to give me ends of
rolls and processed them for me and offered me the option of what
correction to use when printing the slides. The stock and processing
gave better results than the reversal stock I could buy in the shops as
slide film. The processing cost the lab nothing extra, as my 36 or so
exposures were spliced onto the end of an hour's worth of film.)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message <l3guvvFtnh9U1@mid.individual.net> at Mon, 19 Feb 2024
12:13:49, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>On 19/02/2024 11:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> I think in most cases they used different film stock, though I think
>> mainly only two types (I don't think I've ever heard of "cloudy" or
>> "sunny" film, only outdoor and indoor. Usually expressed as a colour
>> temperature in professional circles?)
>>
>The norm when I was chatting to a friendly film processing guy at the
>time, though I was not on the camera crew, was to use indoor film all
>the time, and a colour temperature correction filter when outdoors on
>the camera. The higher light levels meant they could afford to lose the
>film speed, and it saved them having to stock and carry two different

Ah, so exactly the same principle Kodak used for their Super 8 home
cameras/film!

>film types. Exposure meters on set had a selectable filter over the
>sensor for outdoor shoots.
>
>Minor colour correction was done in processing, using filters when
>converting form negative to positive. (The guy used to give me ends of
>rolls and processed them for me and offered me the option of what
>correction to use when printing the slides. The stock and processing
>gave better results than the reversal stock I could buy in the shops as
>slide film. The processing cost the lab nothing extra, as my 36 or so
>exposures were spliced onto the end of an hour's worth of film.)
>
Nice guy to know! Interesting, too, that IYO the results were better
than film "designed" for the purpose.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I finally got my head together, and my body fell apart.